Of Mahomet.
I.
Hardly had the Disciples of Jesus abandoned the Mosaic law to introduce
the Christian, than mankind, with their usual caprice and ordinary
inconstancy, suddenly changed their sentiments, and all the East was
seen embracing the sentiments of the celebrated Arius, who had the
boldness to oppose the fable of Jesus, and prove that he was no more
a God than any other man. Thus Christianity was almost abolished,
and there appeared a new law-giver, who, in less than ten years time,
formed a considerable sect. This was Mahomet. [46]
To be well acquainted with him, it must be known that the part of
Arabia where he was born, was commonly called "the Happy," by reason
of its fertility, and being inhabited by people who formed several
Republics, each Republic being a family called a "tribe," and having
for its head the chief of the principal family, among those which
composed the "tribe."
That in which Mahomet was born was named the Tribe of Koreish, of which
the principal family was that of Hashem, of which the chief was then
a certain Abdul Motallab, [47] grandfather of Mahomet, whose father,
eldest son of Abdul Motallab, was named Abdallah. [47]
This tribe inhabited the shores of the Red sea, and Abdul Motallab
was High Priest of the Temple of Mecca where were worshipped the
Idols of the country. As Chief of his Tribe he was Prince of this
country in which quality he had sustained the war against the King
of Persia and the Emperor of Ethiopia, which shows that Mahomet was
not of the riff-raff of the people.
His father dying before his grandfather, his tender years caused
him to lose the rights he had to the Sovereignty, which one of his
uncles usurped. It was for this reason, not being able to succeed
to the title of Prince, that he was reduced to the humble condition
of shop-boy in the employ of a wealthy widow for whom he became
afterwards factor. Having found him to her liking she married him and
made him one of the richest citizens of Mecca. He was then about 30
years of age, and seeing at hand the means to enforce his rights,
his ambitions awakened, and he meditated in what manner he could
re-establish himself in the dignity of his grandfather.
The correspondence that he had had with Christians in Egypt and Jews
in Judea, where he had traded a long time for his wife while he was
only her factor, gave him an opportunity of knowing who Moses was
and also Jesus Christ. He also had remarked into how many different
sects their Religion was divided, and which produced such diversity
of opinions, and the zeal of each sect. By this he profited, and he
believed he could better succeed in the interest of establishing a new
Religion. The conditions of the time when he formed this design were
very favorable to him, for nearly all of the Arabs, disgusted with the
worship of their Idols, were fallen into a species of Atheism. Thus
Mahomet began by leading a retired life, being exemplary, seeking
solitude, and passing the greater part of the day in prayers and
meditations. He caused himself to be admired for his modest demeanor,
and commenced to speak of revelations and visions. By such action is
gained the credence of the populace, and by such methods Moses and
Jesus commenced. He called himself a prophet and an envoy of God,
and having as much skill as his predecessors in working miracles, he
soon gained attention, then admiration, and soon after the confidence
of the people. A Jew and a Christian monk who were in his conspiracy
aided him in his dextrous moves, and he soon became powerful enough
to resist a vigorous man named Corais, a learned Arab, who endeavored
to expose his imposture.
During this time his uncle, the governor of Mecca, died, and not
being yet strong enough to assume the authority of sovereign, he was
obliged to yield to one of his kinsmen who, penetrating his designs,
obliged him to flee from Mecca and take refuge at Medina, where one
party in the city who were Arian Christians joined him.
Then he ceased to support his authority by argument, and persuaded
his disciples to plant the Mussulman faith at the point of the
sword. Having strengthened his party by alliances, marrying his
daughters to four of the principal citizens of Medina, he was in
condition to place armies in the field who subjugated the various
tribes, one after the other, and with whom he finally seized
Mecca. He did not die until after he had accomplished his purpose
by his hypocrisy and imposture, which elevated him to the dignity of
sovereign, which he transmitted to his successors, and his faith so
well established that there has been no evidence of its failure for
six hundred years, and yet it may be upon the eve of its destruction.
II.
Thus Mahomet was more fortunate than Jesus Christ. After having
labored during twenty-three years in the establishment of his Law
and Religion, he saw its progress before his death, and having an
assurance which Jesus Christ had not, that it would exist a long
time after his death, since he prudently accommodated the genius and
passions of his followers.
Such was the last of these three impostors. Moses threw himself into
an abyss by an excess of ambition to cause himself to be believed
immortal. Jesus Christ was ignominiously hung up between two thieves,
being covered with shame as a recompense for his imposture, and lastly,
Mahomet died in reality in his own bed, and in the midst of grandeur,
but with his bowels consumed by poison given him by a young Jewess,
to determine if he really was a prophet.
This is all that can be said of these four [48] celebrated
impostors. They were just as we have painted them after nature, and
without giving any false shading to their portraits, that it may be
judged if they merited any confidence, and if it is excusable to
be led by these guides, whom ambition and trickery have elevated,
and whom ignorance has destroyed.
SENSIBLE AND OBVIOUS TRUTHS.
I.
It is not sufficient to have discovered the disease if we do not apply
a remedy. It would be better to leave the sick man in ignorance. Error
can only be cured by Truth, and since Moses, Jesus and Mahomet were
what we have represented them, we should not seek in their writings
for the veritable idea of the Divinity. The apparitions and the divine
conformation of the former and the latter, and the divine filiation
of the second, are sufficient to convince us that all is but imposture.
II.
God is either a natural being or one of infinite extent who resembles
what he contains, that is to say, that he is material without being,
nevertheless, neither just nor merciful, nor jealous, nor a God in any
way as may be imagined, and as a consequence is neither a punisher nor
a remunerator. This idea of punishment and recompense only exists in
the minds of the ignorant who only conceive that simple being called
God, under images which by no means represent him. Those who use
their understanding without confounding its operations with those of
the imagination, and who are powerful enough to abandon the prejudice
of a limited education, are the only ones who have sound, clear and
distinct ideas. They consider him as the source of all beings which
are produced without distinction: one being no more than another in His
regard, and man no more difficult to produce than a worm or a flower.
III.
That is why it is not to be believed that this natural and infinite
being which is commonly called God, esteems man more than an ant, or
a lion more than a stone, or any other being more than a phantasy,
or who has any regard for beauty or ugliness, for good or bad, for
the perfect or imperfect. Or that he desires to be praised, prayed,
sought for or caressed, or that he cares what men are, or say, whether
susceptible of love or hate, or in a word that he thinks more of man
than of any other creatures of whatever nature they be. All these
distinctions are only the invention of a narrow mind, that is to say,
ignorance has created them and interest keeps them alive.
IV.
Thus there is no good sensible man who can be convinced of hell,
a soul, spirits or devils, in the manner of which they are commonly
spoken. All these great senseless words have only been contrived to
delude or intimidate the people. Let those then who wish to know the
truth read what follows, with a liberal spirit and an intention to
only give their judgment with deliberation.
V.
The myriads of stars that we see above us are allowed to be so many
solid bodies which move, and among which there is not one designed
as the Court Divine where God is like a King in the midst of his
courtiers; which is the abode of the blest, and where all good souls
fly after leaving this body and world. But without burdening ourselves
with such a rude and ill-conceived opinion, and that it may not be
entertained by any man of good sense, it is certain that what is
called Heaven is nothing but the continuation of our atmosphere,
more subtile and more refined, where the stars move without being
sustained by any solid mass more than the Earth on which we live,
and which like the stars is suspended in the midst of space.
VI.
As may be imagined, a Heaven intended for the eternal abode of the
happy and of God, was the same among the Pagans. Gods and goddesses
were also represented in the same way, also a Hell or a subterranean
place where it was pretended that the wicked souls descended to
be tormented. But this word "hell" taken in its proper and natural
signification means nothing but a "lower place," which poets have
invented to oppose the dwelling of the celestial inhabitants, who
are said to be very sublime and exalted. That is what the Latin word
Infernus or inferi signifies, and also the Greek word admc"> [49],
that is to say, an obscure place like the sepulchre, or any other low
and hidden place. All the rest of what has been said is only pure
fiction and the invention of poets whose symbolical discourses are
taken literally by feeble, timid and melancholy minds, as well as by
those who are interested in sustaining this opinion.
OF THE SOUL.
I.
The Soul is something more delicate and more difficult to treat of
than either Heaven or Hell. That is why it is proper to satisfy Your
Majesty's curiosity, to speak of it a little more at length. Before
saying what I desire on this subject, I will recall in a few words
what the most celebrated Philosophers have thought of it.
II.
Some have said that the Soul is a spirit or an immaterial substance;
others, a kind of divinity; some, a very subtile air, and others a
harmony of all parts of the body. Again, others have remarked that it
is the most subtile and fine part of the blood, which is separated
from it in the brain and is distributed by the nerves: so that the
source of the Soul is the heart where it is produced, and the place
where it performs its noblest function is the Brain, because there
it is well purified from the grosser parts of the blood. These are
the principal opinions which have been held concerning the Soul, but
to render them more perceptible let us divide them into material and
spiritual, and name the supporters of each theory that we may not err.
III.
Pythagoras and Plato have said that the soul is spiritual, that is
to say, a being capable of existence without the aid of the body,
and can move itself: that all the particular souls of animals are
portions of the universal soul of the world: that these portions are
spiritual and immortal, and of the same nature, as we may conceive
that one hundred little fires are of the same nature as the great
fire at which they have been kindled.
IV.
These philosophers believed the animated universe a substance,
spiritual, immortal and invisible, pursuing always that which attracts,
which is the source of all movements, and of all Souls which are
small particles of it. Now, as Souls are very pure, and infinitely
superior to the body, they do not unite immediately, but by means
of a subtile body, such as flame, or that subtile and extensive
air which the vulgar take for heaven. Afterwards they take a body
less subtile, then another a little more impure, and always thus by
degrees, until they can unite with the sensible bodies of animals,
whence (sic) they descend like into dungeons or sepulchres. The death
of the body, they say, is the life of the soul wherein it was buried,
and where it exercises but weakly its most beautiful functions.
Thus at the death of the body the soul comes out of its prison
untrammelled by matter, and reunites with the soul of the universe,
from whence it came. Thus, following this thought, all the Souls of
animals are of the same nature, and the diversity of their functions
comes only from the difference in the bodies that they enter.
Aristotle admits further, a universal understanding common to all
beings, and which acts in regard to particular intelligences as light
does in regard to the eyes; and as light makes objects visible, the
universal understanding makes objects intelligible. This philosopher
defines the Soul as that which makes us live, feel, think and move,
but he does not say what the Being is that is the source and principle
of these noble functions, and consequently we must not look to him
to dispel the doubt which exists concerning the Nature of the Soul.
V.
Dicearchus, Asclesiade (? Esculapius), and in some ways Galen, have
also believed the soul to be incorporeal, but in another manner,
for they have said that it is nothing more than the harmony of all
parts of the body, that is to say, that which results in an exact
blending and disposition of the humors and spirits. Thus, they say,
health is not a part of him who is well, however it be his condition,
so that, however, the soul be in the animal, it is not one of its
parts, but a mutual accord of all of which it is composed. On which it
is remarked that these authors believe the soul to be incorporeal,
on a principle quite opposed to their intent, by saying that it
is not a body, but only something inseparably attached to a body,
that is to say, in good reasoning, that it is quite corporeal, since
corporeality is not only that which is a body, but all which is form
or accident that cannot be separated from matter.
These are the philosophers who have believed the soul incorporeal
or immaterial, who, as you see, are not in accord with themselves,
and consequently do not merit any belief. Let us now consider those
who have avowed it to be a body.
VI.
Diogenes believed that it was formed of air, from which he has inferred
the necessity of breathing, and defines it as an air which passes
from the mouth through the lungs to the heart, where it is warmed,
and from whence it is distributed through the entire body.
Leucippus and Democritus have claimed that it was Fire, as that element
is composed of atoms which easily penetrate all parts of the body, and
makes it move. Hippocrates has said that it is a composition of water
and fire. Empedocles says that it includes the four elements. Epicurus
believed like Democritus, that the soul is composed of fire, but he
adds that in that composition there enters some air, a vapor, and
another nameless substance of which is formed a very subtile spirit,
which spreads through the body and and which is called the soul.
VII.
Not to shuffle, as all these philosophers have done, and to have
as perfect an idea as is possible of the souls of animals, let us
admit that in all, without excepting man, it is of the same nature,
and has no different functions, but by reason of the diversity of
organs and humors; hence we must believe what follows.
It is certain that there is in the universe a very subtile spirit, or
a very delicate matter, and always in motion, the source of which is
in the Sun, and the remainder is spread in all the other bodies, more
or less, according to Nature or their consistency. That is the Soul of
the Universe which governs and vivifies it, and of which some portion
is distributed among all the parts that compose it. This Soul, and
the most pure Fire which is in the universe does not burn of itself,
but by the different movements that it gives to the particles of other
bodies where it enters, it burns and reflects its heat. The visible
fire has more of this spirit than air, the latter more than water,
and the earth much less than the latter. Among the mixed bodies,
plants have more than minerals, and animals more than either. To
conclude, this fire being enclosed in the body, it is rendered capable
of thought, and that is what is called the soul, or what is called
animal spirits, which are spread in all parts of the body. Now, it
is certain that this soul being of the same nature in all animals,
disperses at the death of man in the same manner as in other animals,
from whence it follows that what Poets and Theologians sing or preach
of the other world, is a chimera which they have invented, and which
they narrate for reasons that are easy to guess.
OF SPIRITS WHICH ARE CALLED DEMONS.
I.
We have fully commented on how the belief in Spirits was introduced
among men, and how these Spirits were but phantoms which existed in
their imagination. The ancient Philosophers were not sufficiently clear
to explain to the people what these phantoms were, and did not allow
themselves to say that they could raise them. Some seeing that these
phantoms dissolved and had no consistency, called them immaterial,
incorporeal, forms without matter, or colors and figures, without
being, nevertheless, bodies either colored or defined, adding that
they could cover themselves with air like a mantle when they wished
to render themselves visible to the eyes of men. Others said that
they were animated bodies, but were composed of air, or some other
more subtile matter which condensed at their will when they wished
to appear.
II.
These two kinds of Philosophers being opposed in the opinion which
they had of phantoms, agreed in the name which they gave them, for
all called them Demons, in which they were but little more enlightened
than those who believed they saw in their sleep the souls of the dead,
and that it is their soul which they see when they look in a mirror,
and who also believed that they saw (reflected) in the water the souls
of the stars. After this foolish fancy they fell into an error which is
hardly less supportable, that is, the current idea that these phantoms
had infinite power. An absurd but ordinary belief with the ignorant who
imagined that whatever they did not understand was an infinite power.
III.
This ridiculous opinion was no sooner published than the Sovereigns
began to use it to support their power. They established a belief
concerning spirits which they called Religion, so that the fear which
the people possessed for invisible powers would hold them to their
obedience. To have it carry more influence they distinguished the
demons as good and bad. The latter to encourage men to obey their laws,
and the former to restrain and prevent them from infringing them. Now
to learn what these demons were it is only necessary to read the
Greek poets and their histories, and above all what Hesiod says in
his Theogony where he fully treats of the origin and propagation of
the Gods.
IV.
The Greeks were the first who invented them, and by them they were
propagated through the medium of their colonies, and their conquests in
Asia, Egypt and Italy. The Jews who were dispersed in Alexandria and
elsewhere got their acquaintance with them from the Greeks. They used
them as effectively as the other peoples but with this difference,
they did not call them Demons like the Greeks, but good and bad
spirits; reserving for the good Demons the name of Spirit of God,
and calling those Prophets who were said to possess this good spirit
called the Divine, which they held as responsible for great blessings,
and cacodaemons or Evil spirits on the contrary those which were
provocative of great Evil.
V.
This distinction of good and evil made them name as Demoniacs those
whom we call lunatics, visionaries, madmen and epileptics, and those
who spoke to them in an unknown tongue. A man ill-shaped and of evil
look was to their notion possessed of an unclean spirit, and a mute of
a dumb spirit. Now, these words spirit and demon became so familiar to
them that they spoke of them on all occasions, so that it is evident
that the Jews believed like the Greeks, that these phantoms were not
mere chimeras and visions, but real beings that existed independent
of imagination.
VI.
So it happens that the Bible is quite filled with these words Spirits,
Demons and Fiends, but nowhere is it said when they were first known,
nor the time of their creation, which is hardly pardonable in Moses,
who is earnest in depicting the Creation of Heaven, Earth and Man. No
more then is Jesus Christ who had such close intimacy with them,
who commanded them so absolutely according to the Gospel, and who
spoke so often of angels and good and bad spirits, but without saying
whether they were corporeal or spiritual; which makes it plain that
he knew no more than the Greeks had taught other nations, in which
he is not less culpable than for denying to all men the virtue of
faith and piety which he professed to be able to give them.
But to return to the Spirits. It is certain that the words Demon,
Satan and Devil, are not proper names which designated any individual,
and which never have any credence but among the ignorant; as much
among the Greeks who invented them, as among the Jews where they were
tolerated. So the latter being overrun by them gave them names--which
signified enemy, accuser, inquisitor,--as well to invisible powers
as to their own adversaries, the Gentiles, whom they said inhabited
the Kingdom of Satan; there being none but themselves, in their own
opinion, who dwelt in that of God.
VII.
As Jesus Christ was a Jew, and consequently imbued with these silly
opinions, we read everywhere in the Gospels, and in the writings
of his Disciples, of the Devil, of Satan and Hell as if they were
something real and effective. While it is true, as we have shown,
that there is nothing more imaginary, and when what we have said is
not sufficient to prove it, but two words will suffice to convince
the most obstinate. All Christians agree unanimously that God is
the first principle and the foundation of all things, that he has
created and preserves them, and without his support they would fall
into nothingness. Following this principle it is certain that God
must have created what is called the Devil, and Satan, as well as
the rest, and if he has created both good and evil, why not all the
balance, and if by this principle all evil exists, it can only be by
the intervention of God.
Now can one conceive that God would maintain a creature, not only
who curses him unceasingly, and who mortally hates him, but even
who endeavors to corrupt his friends, to have the pleasure of
being cursed by a multitude of mouths. How can we comprehend that
God should preserve the Devil to have him do his worst to dethrone
him if he could, and to alienate from his service his elect and his
favorites? What would be the object of God in such conduct? Now what
can we say in speaking of the Devil and Hell. If God does all, and
nothing can be done without him how does it happen that the Devil
hates him, curses him, and takes away his friends? Now he is either
agreeable, or he is not. If he is agreeable, it is certain that the
Devil in cursing him only does what he should, since he can only do
what God wills. Consequently, it is not the Devil, but God in person
who curses himself; a situation to my idea more absurd than ever.
If it is not in accord with his will then it is not true that he
is all powerful. Thus there are two principles, one of Good, the
other of Evil, one which causes one thing and the other that does
quite the contrary. To what does this reasoning lead us? To avow
without contradiction that there is no God such as is conceived,
nor Devil, nor Soul, nor Paradise, such as has been depicted, and
that the Theologians, that is to say, those who relate fables for
truth, are persons of bad faith who maliciously abuse the credulity
of the ignorant by telling them what they please, as if the people
were capable of nothing but chimera or who should be fed with insipid
food in which is found only emptiness, nothingness and folly, and not
a grain of the salt of truth and wisdom. Centuries have passed, one
after the other, in which mankind has been infatuated by these absurd
imaginations which have been combatted; but during all the period
there have also been found sincere minds who have written against the
injustice of the Doctors in Tiaras, Mitres and Gowns, who have kept
mankind in such deplorable blindness which seems to increase every day.
FINIS.
By permission of the Lord Baron de Hohendorf I have compiled this
epitome out of the manuscript Library of his Most August Highness,
Duke Eugene of Sabaudio, in the year 1716.
APPENDICITIS.
A DISEASE COMMON TO NEARLY ALL WORKS OF THIS CHARACTER, AND WHICH
CONDITION IS PAST ALL SURGERY.
Another sketch of Mahomet translated from the "Edition en Suisse,"
1793, and which may interest worshippers of Arabian mysteries evolved
from imaginative brains, tinctured with extracts from "Thory's Ada
Latomorum," and similar works, and embellished with effects from
"Michael Strogoff."
XXII.
Of Mahomet.
Hardly had the disciples of Christ abolished the Mosaic law to
introduce the Christian dispensation, than mankind, carried away by
force, and by their ordinary inconstancy, followed a new law-giver,
who advanced himself by the same methods as Moses. He assumed, like
him, the title of prophet, and envoy of God, like him he performed
miracles and knew how to profit by the passions of the people. First
he was accompanied by an ignorant rabble, to whom he explained the
new oracles of heaven. These unfortunates, seduced by the promises
and fables of this new impostor, spread his renown and exalted him
to a height that eclipsed his predecessors.
Mahomet was not a man who appeared capable of founding an empire, as
he excelled neither in politics [50] nor philosophy; in fact, could
neither read nor write. He had so little firmness that he would often
have abandoned his enterprise had he not been forced to persist in
his undertaking by the skill of one of his followers. From that time
he commenced to rise and become celebrated. Corais, a powerful Arab,
jealous that a man of his birth should have the audacity to deceive
the people, declared himself his enemy, and attempted to cross his
enterprise, but the people persuaded that Mahomet had continual
conferences with God and his angels caused him to prevail over his
enemy. The tribe of Corais were at a disadvantage and Mahomet seeing
himself followed by a crazy crowd who thought him a divine man,
thought he would have no need of a companion, but fearing that the
latter (Corais) might expose his impostures he tried to prevent it,
and to do it more certainly he overwhelmed him with promises, and
swore to him that he wished only to become great by sharing the power
to which he had contributed. "We have reached," said he, "the moment
of our elevation, we are sure of the great multitude we have gained,
and we must now assure ourselves by the artifice you have so happily
conceived." At the same time he induced him to hide himself in the
cave of oracles. There was a dried-up well from which he made the
people believe that the voice of God declared himself for Mahomet,
who was in the midst of his proselytes. Deceived by the caresses of
this traitor, his associate went into the well to counterfeit the
oracle as usual; Mahomet then passing by at the head of an infatuated
multitude a voice was heard saying: "I who am your God, declare that
I have established Mahomet as the prophet of all nations: from him
you will learn my true law which has been changed by the Jews and
the Christians." For a long time this man played this game, but in
the end he was paid by the greatest and blackest ingratitude. Mahomet
hearing the voice which proclaimed him a divine being, turned towards
the people and commanded them in the name of the God who recognized
him as his prophet, to fill with stones the ditch from whence had
issued such authentic testimony in his favor, in memory of the stone
which Jacob raised to mark the place where God appeared to him. [51]
Thus perished the unfortunate person who had contributed to the
elevation of Mahomet; it was on this heap of stones that the last
of the celebrated prophets established his law. This foundation is
so stable and founded in such a way that after a thousand years of
reign it has no appearance of being overthrown.
A LITERAL TRANSLATION
DE TRIBUS IMPOSTORIBUS.
ANNO MDIIC.
ZWEITE
MIT EINEM NEUEN VORWORT VERSEHENE AUFLAGE
VON
EMIL WELLER.
HEILBRONN
VERLAG VON GEBR. HENNINGER.
1876
Many maintain that there is a God, and that he should be worshipped,
before they understand either what a God is, or what it is to be,
as far as being is common to bodies and spirits, according to the
distinction they make; and what it is to worship God, although they
regard the worship of God according to the standard of the honor
given to ruling men.
What God is, they describe according to the confession of their own
ignorance. For it is inevitable that they declare how he differs
from other things by the denial of former conceptions. They cannot
comprehend that there is an infinite being; that is, one of whose
limits they are ignorant. There is a creator of heaven and earth,
they say, but who is his creator they do not say, because they do not
know; because they do not understand. Some say that he is the origin
of himself and maintain that he comes from nothing but himself. We do
not understand his origin they say, therefore he has none (why so? if
we do not understand God himself, is there, therefore, no God?) And
this is the first principle of their ignorance.
There is no progression into infinity; why not? because the human
intellect must have some foundation? because it is accustomed to this
belief? because it cannot imagine anything beyond its own limits? As
if, indeed, it followed, that if I do not comprehend infinity,
therefore there is no infinity.
And nevertheless as is known from experience, some among the members of
the sects of Christ, think there is an infinite progression of divine
properties or persons, concerning the limitations of which, however,
there has hitherto been dispute, and so indeed they think that there
is a progression into infinity. For the son is begotten from infinity,
and the holy spirit is breathed from infinity. This begetting and
this procession goes on to infinity. For if that begetting or that
breathing of the spirit had begun or should once have ceased, the
conception of eternity would be destroyed. But if you should agree
with them on this point also, that the creation of man can not be
prolonged to infinity, which they infer, however, on account of
their finite minds, it will not yet be evident whether other beings
have not been begotten among the higher powers, in a peculiar manner
and in great number, as well as among men on earth; and who of this
great number should especially be accepted as God. For every religion
admits that there are Gods who are mediators, although they are not
all under equal limitations, whence that principle, that there must
be one being only, raised above men by his own nature, is evidently
demolished. And so it will be possible to say that from a diversity of
Gods as creators, a diversity of religions, and a variety of kinds of
worship afterwards arose: which the religious feeling of the heathen
especially employed. But as to the objection which is raised about the
murders and the concubinage of the Pagan Gods, aside from the fact that
the Pagans have long since shown that these things must be understood
as mysteries, similar things will be found in other religions.
The slaughter of many tribes was perpetrated by Moses and Joshua at
the command of God. Even human sacrifice the God of Israel demanded
of Abraham, but it was not carried into effect in this remarkable case.
But he could either not have given a command, or Abraham could not have
believed that it had been given in earnest, which would have been in
itself utterly at variance with the nature of God. Mahomet promises
the whole world as the reward offered by his religion, and Christians
talk about the universal slaughter of their enemies and the subjugation
of the foes of the church, which indeed has not been insignificant,
from the fact that the church had the entire control of public affairs.
Was not polygamy also permitted by (Mohammed) Moses, and as some
maintain, even in the New Testament, by Christ? Did not the Holy Spirit
beget the son of God by a peculiar union with a betrothed virgin?
As for other objections which are made to the pagans about their
ridiculous idols, and their misuse of worship, they are not so
weighty that similar ones can not be made to the members of other
sects; nevertheless it can easily be proved that these abuses have
proceeded from the subordinates rather than from the leaders, from
the disciples, rather than from the masters of religions.
But to return to the former argument. This being,--since the intellect
limits its extent,--is what some call Nature and others God. On these
points some agree, others disagree. Some fancy that the worlds have
existed from eternity, and call the connection of things God; certain
ones call God an individual being, which can be neither seen or known,
although among these disputes are not infrequent.
Religion, as far as it concerns worship, some attribute to the fear,
some to the love, of invisible powers. But if the invisible powers are
false, idolatry is just as the principles of each worshipper demand.
They will have it that love springs from kindness and refer it
to gratitude; although nevertheless it chiefly arises from the
sympathy of humors. The kind deeds of enemies inspire especially
violent hatred although no one of the hypocrites has dared to confess
it. But who would suppose that love arises from the kindness of him
who gave to man the characteristics of a lion, a bear and other
wild beasts that he might assume a nature contrary to the will
of the creator? Who, well knowing the weakness of human nature,
placed before [our progenitors] a tree, by which he was sure they
would bring a fatal sentence upon themselves and their descendants
(as some will have it)? And yet the latter are bound to worship and
to perform deeds of gratitude, as if for a great favor, Forsooth! So
the Ithacan may have it, etc. Take deadly arms, a sword for instance,
and if you had the most certain foreknowledge (which some claim for
God also in this very case, inasmuch as there can be no chance with
God) of the very purpose that he, before whose eyes you place it,
will seize it and inflict on himself and all his descendants the
most dreadful death. (He who has still one drop of the milk of human
kindness will shudder to do such a deed). Take, I say, a sword, you
who are a father, for instance, or you who are a friend; and if you
are a father, if you are a real friend, present it to your friend,
or your children, with the command that they should not run upon it,
you foreseeing beyond all doubt, nevertheless, that he will run upon
it, and inflict on his children and those hitherto innocent, the most
dreadful death. Consider, you who are a father, would you do such a
thing? What is it to make a command a mockery, if this is not? And
nevertheless God must have given such a command. But they maintain
that God should be worshipped for his kindness, saying: If God is,
he must be worshipped; just as they make this inference, the Great
Mogul is, therefore he must be worshipped. His own people do indeed
worship him, but why? assuredly that his unbridled pride and that
of all great men may be gratified, and for no other reason. For he
is worshipped chiefly on account of the fear of his visible power
(hence at his death the worship ceases), and then too on account of
the hope of rewards. This same reason exists for the reverence shown
parents and other people in power; and since invisible powers are
considered more important and greater than visible ones, therefore,
they will have it that still more should they be worshipped. And this
God should be worshipped on account of his love, they say. And what
kind of love is it to expose innocent posterity to infinite suffering
on account of the fall of one man, certainly foreseen and therefore
foreordained (foreordained as far at least as being permitted). But,
you say, they are to be redeemed. But how? The father exposes his
only son to extreme suffering, that he may deliver the other man from
tortures no greater, because of the redemption offered by the former.
The Barbarians had no such silly idea. But why should God be loved,
why worshipped? because he created us? But to what end? that we should
fall! because assuredly he had foreknowledge that [our progenitors]
would fall, and set before them the medium of the forbidden fruit,
without which they could not have fallen. Granted, however, that
he should be worshipped because on him all things depend for their
creation; some, nevertheless, add, for their continued existence also,
and their preservation. Why should God be worshipped? Does he himself
delight in worship? Certainly. Parents and benefactors are honored
among us. But why is this honor given? Human nature has regard for
mutual wants and, the bestowal of honor is due to the idea that we can
be aided by a greater and more enduring power. No one wishes to aid
another unless his own wants are satisfied in turn. That is called
a person's recognition of kindness and gratitude, which demands
a greater recognition of his own kindness; and in order that his
reputation may be spread abroad, it demands that the other be ready,
as a handmaid, so to speak, to inspire in others an idea of his fame
and nobility. Doubtless the idea others may entertain of our ability
to be of service to general or individual needs, tickles us, and
raises plumes for us like those of a peacock, wherefore generosity
is found among the virtues. But who does not see the imperfection
of our nature? Who, however, would say that God, the most perfect
of all beings, wants anything? Or that he wishes for any such thing
if he is perfect and already self-sufficient and honored without any
external honors. Who would say that he wants honor except those who
persist in honoring him?
The desire for honor is a sign of imperfection and lack of power.
The consensus of opinion among all races on this subject, is urged by
those who have talked with scarcely all even of their own friends,
or have examined three or four books treating of the testimony of
the world, not even carefully considering how far the authors had
knowledge of the customs of the world; but those excellent authors
were not familiar with all customs. Notice, however, that when one is
considering the matter, the objection here arises, that the fundamental
reasons for worship are connected with God himself and his works,
and not with the elementary constitution of any society. For there is
no one who is not aware that worship is due to the custom, prevalent
among the ruling and rich classes especially, of maintaining some
external form of religion in order to calm the passions of the people.
But if you are concerned about the former reason, who would believe
that in the principal seat of the Christian religion,--Italy,--there
are so many free-thinkers, or to speak more meaningly, Atheists, and if
he should believe it, would say that there is a consensus of opinion
among all races. God is, therefore should he be worshipped? Because,
forsooth, the wiser men at least say so? Who, pray, are the wiser? The
high priest, the augurs, the soothsayers of the ancients, Cicero,
Caesar, the leading men and their priestly adherents, etc.
Would they let it be known that such practices were to their
interests? Doubtless those in control of public affairs, deriving
their profits from the credulity of the people, told fear-inspiring
stories of the power and vengeance of the invisible gods, and lied
about their own occasional meetings and association with them; and
demanded in proportion to their own luxury beings suitable for or even
surpassing themselves. For it is not to be wondered at that priests
promulgate such teachings, since this is their method of maintaining
their own lives. And such are the teachings of the wiser men.
This world may depend on the control of a prime mover; this
is certainly the fact--that the dependence will be only at the
start. For why might there not have been a first command of God, such
that everything would go in a foreordained course to a fixed end,
if he wished to fix one. There would no longer be need of new care,
dependence or support, but he might at first have endowed every one
with sufficient powers. And why should it not be said that he did
this? For it is not to be supposed that he visits all the elements
and parts of the universe as a physician does a sick man.
What then is to be said of the testimony of conscience? and whence
would come those fears of the mind because of wrong-doing, were it
not evident that there is near us a higher power who sees and punishes
us, whom wrong-doing displeases just as it is altogether at variance
with worship of him? It is not now my purpose to inquire more deeply
into the nature of good and evil nor the dangers of prejudice and
the folly of great fear which springs from preconceived ideas. This
merely I say. Whence did they arise? especially since all evil-doing
depends on the corruption and destruction of the harmony resulting
from the interchange of services in the wants to which the human
race is subject, and since the idea about one who wishes to increase
rather than to be of aid in those wants, renders him an object of
hatred. Whence it happens that he himself may fear lest he may incur
the hatred and contempt of others, or a like refusal to satisfy his
wants; or may lose his power of being of service not only to others
but to himself, in so far indeed as he needs to fear any harm from
being wronged by others.
And so, they say, those who do not have the light of Holy Scriptures,
follow the natural light in accordance with the dictates of their
consciences, which proves to be sure, that God has endowed the
intellect of all men with some sparks of his own knowledge and will,
and if they act according to these it must be said that they have
done right. For what reason of theirs can be a command to worship God
if this is not? But it is maintained on many grounds that beasts act
according to the guide of reason, and this matter has not yet been
decided; nevertheless I do not urge this. Who has said anything to
you to prove that this does not occur, or that a trained animal does
not at times surpass an ignorant and uneducated man in intellect and
powers of judgment? But to speak to the point, the majority of men of
leisure who have had time to consider subtile ideas and those beyond
the comprehension of the ordinary intellect, in order to gratify
their own pride and promote their own advantage, have devised many
subtile principles for which Alexis and Thyrsis, prevented by their
pastoral and rustic duties, could have had no leisure. Wherefore,
the latter have placed confidence in the philosophers of leisure,
as if they were wiser, while they are more fitted to impose on the
foolish. Hence, good Alexis, go to, worship the sylvan Pans, Satyrs and
Dianas, etc. For the great philosophers will tell you about the dream
of Numa Pompilius, and narrate to you the story of his concubinage
with the nymph Aegeria, and they will wish by this very account
to bind you to his worship, and as a reward for this pious work,
because of the reconciliation and favor of those invisible powers,
they will demand for their own support, the flower of your flock and
your labor as a sacrifice. And hence, since Titius worshipped Pan,
Alexis, the Fauns, Rome, the Gods of War, Athens, the unknown Gods,
is it to be supposed that those good men learned from the light of
reason certain tales which were the idle inventions and ideas of
philosophers? not to attack too harshly the religion of others.
And why did not this reason also tell that they were mistaken in
their worship, in foolishly worshipping statues and stones, as if
they were the dwelling places of their Gods? But is it indeed to be
supposed that since good women bestowed such worship on Francis,
Ignatius and Dominicus and such men, reason teaches that at least
some one among holy men should be worshipped? That they learn from the
light of nature the worship of some superior power no longer visible,
although, nevertheless, such are the fabrications of our priests of
leisure for the more splendid increase of their own means of support.
Therefore, there is no God? Suppose there is (a God.) Therefore,
should he be worshipped? But this does not follow, because he desires
worship as far as he has inscribed it in the heart. What more then? We
should then follow the guide of our nature. But this is known to be
imperfect. In what respects? For is it sufficient enough to maintain
the society of men peacefully? Because other religious people,
following revelation, do not pass more tranquil lives?
But is it rather because God demands of us especially a more precise
idea of God? But nevertheless you who promise this of any religion
whatsoever, do not supply it. For any revelation of what God is, is
far more unintelligible than before. And how will you make this clearer
by the conception of the intellect, since he limits every intellect?
What do you think of these things?
No one, I say, has a knowledge of God, moreover eye has not seen him,
and he dwells in unapproachable light, and from the time of revelation
till now, in allegory. But I suppose every one knows how clear an
allegory is. Wherefore do you indeed believe that God makes such
demands? or is it from the desire of the intellect to surmount the
limitations of its own capacity in order to comprehend everything more
perfectly than it does, or from something else? Who of you is there
who speaks from special revelation? Good God! what a hodge-podge of
revelations. Do you point to the oracles of the heathen? Antiquity
has already held them up to ridicule. To the testimony of your
priests? I can show you priests who will contradict them. You may
protest in your turn, but who will be the judge? Who will put an end
to these disputes? Do you call attention to the writings of Moses,
the Prophets and Apostles? I bring to your notice the Koran, which
says that, according to a new revelation, these are corrupt and its
author boasts of having settled by the sword the corruptions and
altercations of Christians as did Moses those of the heathen. For
by the sword Mahomet and Moses subjugated Palestine, each instructed
by great miracles. And the writings of the Sectarians as well as of
the Vedas and the Brahmins 1300 years back, are in opposition, to say
nothing of the Sinenses. [52] You, who in some remote spot in Europe
are disputing about such things disregard or deny these writings. You
yourself should see very clearly that with equal ease they deny your
writings. And what proofs not miraculous, would be sufficient to
convince the inhabitants of the world, if it were evident from the
first three books of Veda, that the world was contained in and came
from an egg of a scorpion, and that the earth and first elements
of things was placed on the head of a bull, if some envious son of
the Gods had not stolen these first three volumes. In our times this
would be laughed at; and among those people there would not be this
strange argument to establish their religion if it did not have its
origin in the brains of these priests.
And whence else came those many immense volumes concerning the gods of
the pagans and those wagon loads of lies? Moses acted very wisely in
first becoming skilled in the arts of the Egyptians, that is in the
mastery of astrology and magic, and then by cruel war driving from
their homes the petty kings of Palestine, and pretending a conference
like that of Numa Pompilius. Leading his army, confident of their
fortunes, into the possessions of peaceful men; in order that he,
forsooth, might be a great general and his brother high priest,
and that he himself might be a leader and dictator. But of what
a people! Others by milder means and by pulling the wool over the
eyes of the people under cover of profound sanctity (I am afraid to
mention other things,) and by the pious deceits of members of their
sect in secret assemblies, first got control of the ignorant country
people and then, because of the growing strength of the new religion,
they got control of those who feared for themselves, and hated a
leader of the people. At length another eager for war, by feigning
miracles attached to himself the more ferocious people of Asia,
who had suffered ill treatment at the hands of commanders of the
Christians, and who, like Moses, with the promise of many victories
and favors, he subjugated the warring and peaceful leaders of Asia,
and established his religion by the sword. The first is considered
the reformer of the heathen, the second of Judaism and the third the
reformer of both. It remains to be seen who will be the reformer
of Mahomet and Mahometanism. Doubtless then, the credulity of men
is likely to be imposed on, and to take advantage of this under the
pretense of some gain to be derived, is rightly called imposture.
It would be too long and tedious to show more at length in this
place, the nature and forms of what goes under the name of imposture,
but we must observe, that, even if natural religion is granted and
the worship of God is right as far as it is said to be commanded by
nature; that up to this time the leader of every new religion has been
suspected of imposture, especially since it is evident to all and is
obvious from what has been said or can be said, how many deceptions
have been used in propagating any religion.
It remains then unanswerable according to the previous argument, that
religion and the worship of God according to the promptings of natural
light, is consistent with truth and justice; but if any one wishes to
establish any new principles in religion, either new or displeasing,
and that by the authority of invisible powers, it will evidently be
necessary for him to show his power of reforming, unless he wishes to
be considered by all an impostor. Since, not under the conclusions
of natural religion, nor under the authority of special revelation,
he offers opposition to the ideas of all. Moreover he should be so
upright in life and character that the people may believe him worthy
of being associated with so high and holy a power, who does not
approve of anything impure. Nor can merely his own confession, nor
the holiness of a past life, nor any miracles--that is extraordinary
deeds--prove this; for this is common rather among the skillful and
the deceivers of men, lying hypocrites who pursue their own advantage
and glory in this way. For it is not worth considering that some
reached such a degree of madness that they voluntarily sought death,
in order that it might be supposed that they despised and conquered
everything, like different ones among the ancient philosophers. Nor
is it to be supposed that they were upheld by special divine powers
in that which they did because of foolish fancies and fond hopes of
mountains of gold, rising from a defective judgment. For they did not
give the matter the proper consideration, nor did the real teachers,
for in order that you may come to a fair decision about them, I have
said not only is their own testimony not sufficient, but in order
to reach the truth of the matter, they must be compared with one
another; and other witnesses with them, and then their acquaintances
and friends, and then strangers, then friends and enemies; and then
after the testimony is all gathered in, that of each teacher concerning
himself, and then that of others must be compared. And if we do not
know the witnesses, we must consult the witnesses of the witnesses,
and so on; besides instituting an investigation as to your powers of
distinguishing from the true and the false involved in such or other
circumstances. Especially in similar ones, inquiring, moreover, whence
you desired data to learn the truth, for this purpose comparing the
judgment of others, as to what they infer from such an investigation
or from the testimony of witnesses. And from these data it will
be permissible to infer whether he who makes this claim, is a true
messenger of the revelation of divine will and whether his teachings
should be gradually adopted. But at this point we must be very careful
not to get into a circle. Whenever the nature of important religions
may be such that one supplants another, as that of Moses, Paganism,
that of Mahomet, Christianity,--the later one may not always nor in
every particular cast aside the earlier, but only in certain parts,
to such an extent that the latter is founded on the former, it will
be necessary to investigate carefully not only either the last,
or the middle, or the first, but all, especially since the charge
of imposture is brought by every sect. So the ancients were charged
with it by Christ, because they corrupted the law; the Christians
by Mahomet, because they corrupted the gospels, a fact not to be
wondered at, inasmuch as one sect of Christians charges the other
with corrupting texts of the New Testament, so that it can [not]
be ascertained whether he who is offered as an example is a teacher
of a true religion or how far those who claim to have been given
authority, should be listened to. For in an investigation no sect
must be overlooked, but each must be compared with the rest without
any prejudice. For if one is overlooked, that perhaps, is the very
one which is nearer the truth. Thus, those who followed Moses, have
followed the truth according to the Christians also, but they ought
not to have paused at that point, but should examine the truth of
the Christian religion also.
Each sect maintains that its own teachers are the best and that it
has had and is daily having proof of this, and that there are no
better ones, so that either every one must believe it, which would
be absurd, or no one, which is the safer plan, until the true way is
known, though no sect should be disregarded in a comparison.
There is no need of presenting the objection that it is known that
all mathematicians agree that twice two is four. For it is not a
similar case, since no one has been known to doubt whether twice
two is four, while on the contrary religions agree neither in end,
beginning nor middle. Suppose that I do not know the true way of
salvation; I follow, however, the Brahmins or the Koran. Will not
Moses and the rest say: What wrong have we done you that you thus
reject us, though we are better and nearer the truth? What reply shall
we make? I believed in Mahomet or the Gymnosophistes [53], in whose
teachings I was born and brought up, and from them I learned that
your religion and that of the Christians which followed, have long
since decayed and grown corrupt, and are still misleading. Will they
not reply that they do not know anything about the others and that
these do not know anything about the true guide to salvation, since
they know that those who are corruptors of the people are impostors,
feigning miracles, or by lies pulling the wool over the eyes of the
people. Nor should faith be thus simply given to one man or one sect,
rejecting all others without a complete and proper investigation. For
with equal right the Ethiopian, who has not left his own land, says
that there are no men under the sun except those of a black color.
Moreover, this precaution also should be taken in the investigation
of other sects, that equal care should be used in an investigation of
all, and while one is explained with great pains, the other should not
be slighted, because one claim or another at first sight seems to be
wrong, or because of the evil reports of gossip concerning the leader
of that sect, while other reports are cast aside. For that should
not be set down as doctrine or indubitable testimony, which the first
vagabond that comes along asserts about a hostile religion. Indeed,
with equal right on account of common gossip and the mere mention of
a name, the Christian religion was to some an object of horror, and
to others an object of scorn. With the latter because the Christians
worshipped the head of an ass, and with the former because they ate
and drank their God, so that at length the report became current
that to be a Christian was to be a deadly enemy of God and men;
when, nevertheless, such tales were either things which had been
misunderstood or skillfully told lies, which were then confirmed,
and having some foundation, spread abroad because an enemy of that
religion had absolutely no intercourse, or no proper intercourse,
with the Christians themselves, or the more learned among them,
but believed the first ignorant person or deserter or enemy of that
religion. Such a method of investigation being decided upon, it would
always be a matter of great difficulty. What shall we say about women,
what about children, what about the majority of the masses of the
people? All children will be excluded from a feeling of security
in regard to their religion, and the majority of women to whom even
those matters which have been most clearly explained by the leaders
of any religion, as far as can be done, are obscure: also from their
manner of life you rightly perceive that with the exception of a
very few superior ones, they have no accurate powers of comprehending
mysteries of such a character, to say nothing of the countless numbers
of insignificant persons and country people for whom the question of
their own support is the most important subject for the exercise of
their powers of reason, while other matters they accept or reject in
good faith. Doubtless there is only a very small part of the world,
who weigh all religions, compare their own carefully with others and
correctly distinguish true reasons from false, in details in which
deception may creep in; but the majority rather adopt the faith of
others, of teachers of sacred matters especially, whose knowledge
and powers of judgment in sacred matters are considered noteworthy.
And so in any religion this is done, especially by those who can not
read and write or do not have anything to read. But it should have been
observed that in this matter it is not sufficient that the teachers of
any religion should have the power, because of very exact powers of
judgment and avowed experience, of distinguishing the true from the
false. Indeed it ought to be very certain to others, with powers of
judgment no less exact, that those teachers have not only the ability
to distinguish the true from the false, but the desire as well, and
indeed we ought to be especially certain that he who professes such
a knowledge and desire is neither deceived nor wishes to be.
And what choice shall we make here among so many teachers so much at
variance in even one eminent sect? For when we look at our comrades
and associates, who disagree on many subjects, although they are most
friendly in other respects, one of the two disputants will maintain
his opinion on account of some defect, either because he has not a
correct understanding of the matter, and lacks the power of judgment,
or because he does not wish to give up, and so does not desire to
confess the truth. But although it might be matters of secondary
importance in which this happened, nevertheless the result will be
that they will be mistrusted in other matters also. Each doubtless is
in possession of one truth, and he who gives this up in one place,
either from a defect of judgment or a wrong desire is deservedly
mistrusted of doing the same thing in other cases.
Therefore, that you may judge of the ability and honesty of any teacher
in religion, first, it is necessary for you to be just as able as he;
for otherwise he will be able to impose on you very easily, and,
moreover, if he is unknown to you, he will need the testimony of
others, and these again of others, and so on indefinitely; not only
in regard to his truthfulness, that he really taught such doctrines,
but in regard to his honesty, that he did this without deceit. And
the same method must at once be employed in regard to the witnesses
of his honesty and his teachings. But where will you place an end to
this? It is not enough that such discussions have already taken place
among others; you must consider how well this has been done. For
the ordinary proofs which are set forth are neither conclusive nor
manifest, and prove doubtful matters by others more doubtful, so that,
like those who run in a circle, you return to the starting point.
In order that it may be manifest whether any one is a teacher of a true
religion or an impostor, there is need either of personal knowledge,
which we can not have in the case of the three great founders of
the religions of Judaism, Christianity and Mahometanism, inasmuch
as they lived in far distant places and died long before our time;
or of the knowledge of others, which, if any one imparts it to you,
we call testimony.
Between these, there is still another way of knowing any one, namely
through his own writings, which may be called one's own testimony
concerning himself. And concerning Christ, there is no such testimony;
concerning Moses, it is doubtful whether there is; concerning Mahomet,
there is the Koran. The testimony of others is of two classes--that
of friends and that of enemies. Between these extremes there is no
third class, according to the saying, "who is not with me is against
me." Mahomet in his writings assumes and attributes to himself the
same divine qualities as did Moses and another. Moreover the friends of
Mahomet and members of his sect wrote the same things concerning him as
did the members of the sects of the others concerning their masters,
and the enemies of the others wrote just as disparagingly of them as
their friends did of Mahomet. As for the rest, the testimony of any one
concerning himself is too unreliable to inspire implicit confidence,
and is of no consequence except, perchance, to perplex a thoughtless
hearer. The assertions of friends, who doubtless unanimously repeat
the sayings of their masters, are of the same nature. Nor should
the enemies of any one be heeded on account of their prejudices. But
as it is, in spite of these facts, it is for such trivial reasons,
which are confirmed only by the master's own boasts, the assertions
of friends, or the calumnies of enemies, that every follower of
any one of the three assumes that the claims of his enemy are based
wholly on imposture, while the teachings of his master are founded
wholly on truth. Nevertheless Mahomet is undoubtedly considered an
impostor among us; but why? Not from his own testimony or that of his
friends but from that of his enemies. Then, on the contrary, among
the Mahometans he is considered a most holy prophet; but why? From
his own testimony, but especially from that of his friends. Whoever
considers Moses an impostor or a holy teacher employs the same method
of reasoning. And there is equal reason in the case of Mahomet as
in the case of the others, either for charging him with imposture
or for answering that charge, although, nevertheless, the former
are considered holy, while he is considered a scoundrel, contrary
to all the demands of justice. To put it in the scholastic manner,
then, the following conclusions are most firmly established: Whenever
there is the same reason as in the case of Mahomet for charging any
person with imposture or for answering that charge, they should be
placed in the same category. And for example, in the case of Moses,
there is the same reason, therefore justice should be demanded just
as in the case of Mahomet, nor should he be considered an impostor.
PROOF OF MINOR PREMISE.
(a.) In regard to the rebuttal of the charge of imposture: this is
based on the above-mentioned testimony not only of Mahomet concerning
himself in his well-known writings, but on that of every one of his
friends concerning their master, and hence, it logically follows:
(I.) Whatever value the testimony of Moses' friends has in defending
him on the charge of imposture, the testimony of Mahomet's friends
ought to have the same value. And whatever the value of the acquittal,
though their favorable testimony, etc., etc. Therefore, etc.
(II.) And whatever value the books of Moses have for this purpose,
the same value the Koran has also. And so, etc. Therefore, etc.
Moreover, the Mussulmen, from the very books of the New Testament
(although according to these very persons, these books have been much
corrupted in other respects,) draw various arguments even in support
of their Mahomet, and especially that prediction of Christ concerning
the future Paraclete. [54] They maintain that he came and exposed the
corruption of the Christians, and established a new covenant. And
although at other times the Koran is charged with many silly, nay
impious tales, all these nevertheless, can be explained in a spiritual
sense or smoothed over in other ways, since the rest of the teachings
insist on nothing but extreme sanctity and a stringent mode of morals,
but especially on temperance and abstinence from wine. And to the
objection frequently raised that wine is the gift of God, the reply
can be made that so also are poisons, and yet we are not supposed
to drink them. The further objection often made that the spirit of
the Koran is too carnal, and fills eternal life with pleasures of
the world and the flesh, polygamy moreover being so indiscriminately
permitted, it is not of such weight that it can not be confuted, since
Moses also permitted polygamy and in the New Testament life eternal
admits of banquets, e. g., you will sit down with Abraham and Isaac,
etc., etc. Again, I shall not taste wine except in the Kingdom of my
Father. It is said that all those pleasures mentioned in the Song of
Solomon, which is, of course, also instanced, are not wrong, and when
explained in a spiritual sense imply no wrong, although the same thing
is not said of the Koran. And if we are too severely critical of the
words of the Koran, we ought to employ the same severity of criticism
against the writings of Moses and others. Moreover the arguments which
are offered from Moses himself in answer to the charge of imposture,
do not seem reasonable nor of sufficient weight.
(I.) Our knowledge of the intercourse Moses had with God depends on
his own testimony and that of his friends, and hence such evidence
can have no more weight than similar arguments of the Mussulmen
concerning the conference that Mahomet had with Gabriel; and what
is more, this intercourse of Moses, according to Moses himself (if
all those sayings are Moses', which are commonly attributed to him)
is open to the suspicion of imposture, as is to be shown below.
(II.) No one indeed who is acquainted with the many very grave crimes
of Moses, will be able to say easily or at least justly, that his
holiness of life can not easily be matched. His crimes then are
the following:
(a.) Fraud, which none but his friends have palliated, but they are
not impartial judges of the matter; nor does that commendatory passage
of Luke in the Acts of the Apostles form any apology, for there is
dispute as to the honesty and veracity of that witness.
(b.) The stirring up of rebellion; for it can not be proved that
this was due to a command of God, nay, the contrary is clear, since
elsewhere Moses is urged to forbid resistance to tyrants.
(c.) Wars, although murder is contrary to the V. and VII. (?VI.) [55]
commandments of Moses himself, unrestrained plunder, etc., etc.; just
as the high priest in India, or Mahomet in his land, offering the
command of God as a pretext, drove from their territory the former
possessors. Moses slew thousands and gave them over to slaughter in
order to insure salvation to himself and his people.
(d.) The teaching concerning the taking of the property of others
under the pretense of a loan.
(e.) The prayer to God in which Moses desired to die eternally for
his people, although this petition asked of God such things as would
destroy his essence. See Exodus xxxii, 31, 32. [56]
(f.) Neglect of the commands of God in regard to circumcision (Exodus
iv, 24, 25, 26,) [57] and finally,
(g.) The chief of Moses' crimes, the extreme and stupid incredulity
of one who was chosen to perform so many miracles by the power of God,
and who nevertheless on account of his wavering faith was censured by
God himself severely and with the threat of punishment. (Numbers xx,
12). [58]
As to
(b.) The proof of the other argument, namely, the charge of imposture,
it can be said: We believe that Mahomet was an impostor, not from
our personal knowledge, as was pointed out above, but from the
testimony, not of his friends, but of his enemies. But all such
are anti-Mahometans, according to the saying "Who is not with me
is against me," etc., etc.: hence follows the conclusion: Whatever
weight the testimony of enemies has in the case of one, that it ought
to have in the case of the other also. Otherwise we shall be unjust
in condemning one from the testimony of enemies and not the other;
if this were done, all justice would be at an end.
And in the case of Mahomet, the testimony of enemies has such weight,
that he is considered an Impostor, therefore, etc., etc.
Furthermore, I say that reasons for suspecting Moses of imposture
can be elicited not only from external, but from internal evidence,
whereby imposture can be proved by his own testimony as well as by
that of others, albeit, his followers, although there is still dispute.
(I.) Whether the books, which are said to be those of Moses, are his or
(II.) those of compilers, (III.) or those of Esdras, especially, and
(IV.) whether they were written in the Samaritan, or (V.) the real
Hebrew language; and (VI.) if the latter, whether we can understand
that language. All these matters are doubtful for many reasons, and
especially it can be shown from the first chapters of Genesis that we
can not correctly interpret that language. I confess I am unwilling
to concern myself with these points, but I wish to discuss the man.
I. From Moses' own testimony and indeed
(a.) concerning his life and character which we have considered above,
and which, if any blame is attached to Mahomet on account of the fierce
wars he waged, especially against the innocent, is equally blamable,
and in other respects does not seem at all different from Mahomet's.
(b.) Concerning the authority of his own teaching. And here applies
what was said above about Moses' intercourse with God, which Moses
indeed boasted of but evidently with too great exaggeration. For if
any one boasts of intercourse with God of an impossible nature, his
intercourse is properly doubted and Moses, etc. Therefore, etc. It is
proved because he boasts of having seen that of which in the Old and in
the New Testament afterward, it is very often said that no eye has seen
(namely) God face to face. Exodus xxxii. 11. Numbers xii. 8. [59] Thus
he saw God (1) in his own form, not in a vision nor in a dream (2),
but face to face as friend to friend when he spoke directly to him. But
any vision, which (1) is like that of friends speaking face to face,
directly to one another, (2) like that of the blessed in the other
life, is properly called and considered a vision of God. And Moses,
etc. Therefore, etc. The Minor premise is proved from the passages
previously cited and from the words of the Apostle: then indeed
face to face, etc., and there is the same argument in the passages
of Moses and in that of the Apostle. And yet among Christians the
belief is most firmly established that no unjust person can see God
in this life. And in the above passage of Exodus xxxiii. 20, [60]
it is expressly added: you will not be able to see my face. These
words God addressed to Moses and they are in direct contradiction to
the passages previously cited, so that these claims can be explained
in no other way than by saying that they were added by a thoughtless
compiler, but by so doing the whole is rendered doubtful.
(c.) Concerning the teachings of Moses, which relate either to the
laws or the gospel. Among the laws, all of which for the sake of
brevity I can not now consider, the decalogue is most important, being
called the special work of God and said to have been written on Mount
Horeb. But it is evident it was devised by Moses before it was written
by God, because these commands are not in themselves characterized
by the perfection of God, since (1) they are either superfluous,
namely the last three, arguing from the words of Christ in Math. v,
[61] undoubtedly relating to the former, while the IX should not
be separated from the X, and they will likewise be superfluous (2)
or they are defective. For where are these commandments: thou shalt
not desire to have other Gods, nor desire to curse God, nor desire to
desecrate the Sabbath, nor to injure thy parents, and similar ones? And
is it to be presumed that God would forbid the lesser sins of coveting
a neighbor's house, land and property especially, and in an order
so extraordinary, and not the greater? As to the teaching of Moses
concerning the gospel, he establishes a very foolish and untrustworthy
sign of the future great prophet, or Christ. Deut. xviii, 21, 22,
[62] since this sign makes faith impossible for a long time. From this
dictum it follows that Christ, having predicted the fall of Jerusalem,
ought not to have been considered a true prophet while that prophecy
was as yet unfulfilled (nor should Daniel, until his prophecy had
been fulfilled), and so those who lived in the interval between the
time of Christ and the overthrow of Judea, can not be blamed for not
believing in him, although Paul hurled anathemas at those who did
not attach themselves to Christ before the fall.
Whatever sign, then, permits people for a long time to believe what
they please with impunity, can not proceed from God, but is justly
subject to suspicion. And this sign was given, etc., therefore, etc.
What is said concerning the fulfillment of other prophecies is no
objection. For it is the special and genuine sign of that great
prophet, that his predictions are fulfilled. Wherefore, naturally,
previous to this fulfillment he could not have been considered such
a prophet.
The other absurd conclusion which evidently follows from this passage,
is this: that although this sign ought to have been the proof of the
divine inspiration of all prophets, in the case of certain prophets
who made predictions, indefinite indeed, but in words not admitting a
moral interpretation (such as soon, swiftly, near, etc.,) that sign
can by no means be found, e. g. Many predict the last day of the
world and Peter said that that day was at hand; therefore, so far,
until it comes it will be impossible to consider him a true prophet.
For such is the express requirement Moses makes in the passage cited.
(d.) Concerning the histories of Moses. But if the Koran is charged
with containing many fables, doubtless in Genesis there are many
stories to arouse the suspicions of the thoughtful reader: as the
creation of man from the dust of the earth, the inspiration of
the breath of life, the creation of Eve from the rib of the man,
serpents speaking and seducing human beings, who were very wise and
well aware that the serpent was possessed by the father of lies,
the eating of an apple which was to bring punishment upon the whole
world, which would make finite one of the attributes of God, namely
his clemency (the attributes of God being identical with his essence),
as the redemption of the fallen would make finite the wrath of God,
and so God himself: for the wrath of God is God himself; men eight
or nine hundred years old; the passage of the animals into the
ark of Noah, the tower of Babel, the confusion of tongues, etc.,
etc. These and a thousand other stories can not fail to impress the
investigating freethinker as being similar to the fables, especially
of the Rabbins since the Jewish race is very much addicted to the use
of fables; nor at all inconsistent with other works, to mention those
of Ovid, the Vedas, those of the Sinenses and the Brahmins of India,
who tell that a beautiful daughter born from an egg bore the world,
and similar absurdities. But Moses especially seems to arrest our
attention because he represents God as contradicting himself, namely,
saying that all things were good and yet that it was not good for Adam
to be alone. Whence it follows that there was something apart from
Adam that was not good and so could injure the good condition of Adam,
while, nevertheless, the solitude of Adam itself was the work of God,
since he had created goodness not only of the essences but also of
the qualities.
For all things were good in that quality in which God had created
them. I adduce as proof: It is impossible for any work created by God
not to be good. And the solitude of Adam, etc., etc. Therefore, etc.
Whoever enters upon the study of the genealogies of the Old Testament
finds many difficulties in Moses. I shall not now cite all, contenting
myself with merely this one example, since Paul, I. Tim. i., 4,
[63] has taught that genealogies are useless, and the study of them
unprofitable, nay, to be avoided. Of what use were so many separate,
nay, so oft times repeated, genealogies? And there is a remarkable
example to arouse suspicion at least of the corruption of the text
or of the carelessness of compilers, in the case of the wives of Esau
and the different things said of them.
WIVES OF ESAU.
[64]Genesis xxvi, 34:
Judith, daughter of Berit, the Hittite.
Basnath, daughter of Elon, the Hittite.
Genesis xxviii, 9:
Mahalaad, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nabajoth, who is mentioned
after the two former.
Genesis xxxvi, 2:
Ada, daughter of Elon, the Hittite.
Akalibama, C. I.
Basnath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nabajoth.
The one who is called Ada in Genesis xxxvi, is called Basnath in
Gen. xxvi, namely, the daughter of Elon, the Hittite, and the one who
is called Basnath in Gen. xxxvi, is called Mahalaad in Gen. xxviii,
namely, the sister of Nabajoth, although, nevertheless, Mahalaad,
in the passage cited in Gen. xxviii, is said to have been married
after Judith and Basnath, previously mentioned in Gen. xxvi.
I do not yet see how these names are to be reconciled. And these and
similar passages increase the suspicion that the writings of Moses
which we have, have been put together by compilers and that errors
in writing have crept in at some time.
Finally the most conclusive argument against the authenticity of
Moses is the excessive tautology and useless repetition, with always
the same amount of difference, as if different passages had been
collected from different authors.
(II.) To prove that Moses is subject to suspicion from the testimony,
not of his enemies only, but from that of those who openly professed
to be his followers and disciples. And this testimony is
(g.) Of Peter, Acts xv. 10, [65] calling the yoke of Moses
insupportable: and hence either God must be a tyrant, which would be
inconsistent with his nature, or Peter speaks falsely, or the laws
of Moses are not divine.
(h.) Of Paul always speaking slightingly of the laws of Moses, which
he would not do if he considered them divine. Thus Gal. iv. [66]
he calls them
(a.) Bondage v. 3, 4, but who would have so called the laws of God.
(b.) Beggarly commands v. 9. [67]
(c.) V. 30, [67] he writes: Cast out the bondwoman and her son. Hagar,
the bondwoman, is the covenant of Mount Sinai, which is the law
of Moses according to v. 24. [67] But who would tolerate the saying,
cast out the law of God and its children, and followers, although Paul
himself, as he asserts here and in the following chapter Gal. iv. 2,
3, [67] does not permit Timothy to be circumcised. Act xvi. [68]
(d.) He calls the law a dead letter, and what else does he not call it?
II. Cor. iii., 6-10 [67] and following. Likewise he did not consider
its glory worth considering. c. v., 10. Who would say such things of
the most holy law of God? If it is just as divine as the gospel it
ought to have equal glory, etc., etc.
The testimony of those who are outside of the Jewish or Christian
church, is etc., etc.
TANTUM.
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY.
In the library of Cornell University, at Ithaca, N. Y., is a large
collection of Spinoza manuscripts and printed books by the same
author. The collection was left to the library, and is known as the
"Strauss Collection." In the collection is a manuscript copy of "La
vie et l'esprit de M. Benoit de Spinosa," which includes "Le traité
des trois Imposteurs."
This particular manuscript is much longer than any of the printed
editions of Traité des Trois Imposteurs, and includes several more
chapters than another manuscript which is in same library.
The printed editions usually contain six chapters, although the
edition à Philadelphie, 1796, alluded to on pages 18-19, contains
nine chapters. None of the printed editions that I have seen contains
a chapter entitled Numa Pompilius.
The manuscript in Cornell library has six additional chapters
more than our manuscript, 1716, which chapters are entitled:
1. Religions. 2. Of the Diversity of Religions. 3. Divisions of
Christians. 4. The Superstitious,--of the superstition and credulity
of the people. 5. Of the Origin of Monarchies. 6. Of Legislators and
Politicians, and how they serve themselves with Religion.
These chapters being but an elaboration of the matters and ideas
contained in our English translation.--A. N.
TRANSLATIONS OF LATIN FOUND IN THE TEXT.
P. 8, paragraph 3, "Atheismus Triumphatus." Atheism destroyed.
P. 10, paragraph 1, "Perini del Vago, Equitis de Malta, Epistolium
ad Batavum in Brittania hospitem de tribus Impostoribus," (3 Greek
words omitted). Epistle to Batavus, a friend in Britain, about the
Three Impostors (the Pamphleteers, Sycophants and so-called Doctors).
P. 12, line 2, "Ridiculum et imposturae in omni hominum
religione, scriptio paradoxa, quam ex autographo gallico Victoris
Amadeo Verimontii ob summam rei dignitatem in latinum sermonem
transtulit." What is ridiculous, and the impostures in every religion
of mankind, a strange writing, which he translated into Latin from
the original French of Victor Amadeus Verimontius, on account of the
great worth of the subject matter.
P. 12, line 9, "Quaedam deficiunt s. fragmentum de libro de tribus
impostoribus." Certain things are missing. His fragment of the book
about the three impostors.
P. 12, line 12, "De imposturis religionum breve. Compendium descriptum
ab exemplari manuscripto quod in bibliotheca J. Fred. Mayeri, Berolini,
publice distracta deprehensum et a Principe Eugenio de Sabaudio,
80 Imperialibus redemtum fuit." An abstract about the impostures
of religions. An abridgment copied from the original manuscript
which, at the dispersal of the library of J. Fred. Mayer of Berlin,
was discovered and repurchased by Prince Eugene de Sabaudio for
80 imperials.
P. 12, line 18, "Communes namque demonstrationes, quae publicantur,
nec certae, nec evidentes, sunt, et res dubias per alias saepe
magias dubias probant, adeo ut exemplo eorum, qui circulum currunt,
ad terminum semper redeant, a quo currere inceperant. Finis." For the
ordinary arguments which are set forth, are not established, nor are
they evident, and prove doubtful matters by others often much more
doubtful, just like those who run in a circle, and always return to
the starting point. End.
P. 12, last 7 lines, "Quamvis omnium hominem intersit nosse veritatem,
rari tamen boni illi qui eam norunt," etc. Although it is to the
interest of all men to know the truth, nevertheless those few good
men who know it, etc.
"Qui veritates amantes sunt, multum solatii inde capient, et hi sunt,
quibus placere gestimus, nil curantes mancipia, quae prejudicia
oraculorum--infallibilium loco venerantur." Those who are lovers of
the truth will derive much comfort from this, and those are the ones
whom we are anxious to please, not caring for those servile persons
who reverence prejudices as infallible oracles.
P. 13, paragraph 7, "De impostura religionum compendium s. liber de
tribus impostoribus." Treatise about the imposture of religions. His
book about the three impostors.
P. 15, paragraph 2, "Homo sum, nihil humania me alienum puto." I am
a man, I consider nothing human alien to me.
Page 29, 4th paragraph. Latin orthography corrected:
"Quod de tribus famosissimis Nationum Deceptoribus in
ordinem. Jussu. meo digessit Doctissimus ille vir, quocum Sermonem
de illa re in Museo meo habuisti exscribi curavi atque codicem illum
stilo aeque, vero ac puro scriptum ad te ut primum mitto, etenim
ipsius perlegendi te accipio cupidissimum."
This treatise about the three most famous impostors of the world, in
accordance with my instructions was put in order by that scholar with
whom you had the conversation concerning that matter in my library,
I had it copied, and that MS. written in a style equally genuine and
simple. I send you as soon as possible, for I am sure you are very
eager to read it.
P. 29-30, last paragraph, (Latin orthography corrected),
"I. liber de Nat. Deor. Qui Deos esse dixerunt tanta sunt in
Varietate et dissentione constituti ut eorum molestum sit dinumerare
sententias. Alterum fieri profecto potest ut eorum nulla, alterum certe
non potest ut plus unum vera fit. Summi quos in Republica obtinuerat
honores orator ille Romanus, eaque quam servare famam Studiote curabat,
in causa fuere quod in Condone Deos non ausus sit negare quamquam in
contesta Philosophorum, etc."
I. Book about the nature of the Gods. "Those who have said that there
are Gods, are characterized by such a variety of ideas and difference
of belief, that it would be difficult to enumerate their opinions.
"On the one hand it might indeed happen that not one of their opinions
was true, but on the other hand, certainly not more than one can be
true." The great honors which that famous Roman orator had gained in
the state, and that reputation, which he took the most zealous care
to maintain, were the reason why in a public speech he dared not deny
the Gods, although in a discussion of philosophers, etc.
P. 35, last paragraph, "De poteste Imperiali,"--Of the Imperial power.
P. 144, TANTUM--So Far.
QUIXOTISM.
Did you ever attend a meeting of the society for the--perhaps I had
better not mention the name of the society, lest I tread on your
favorite Quixotism. Suffice it to say that it has a noble purpose. It
aims at nothing less than the complete transformation of human
society, by the use of means which, to say the least, seem quite
inadequate. After the minutes of the last meeting have been read,
and the objects of the society have been once more stated with much
detail, there is an opportunity for discussion from the floor.
"Perhaps there is some one who may give some new suggestions, or who
may desire to ask a question."
You have observed what happens to the unfortunate questioner. What
a sorry exhibition he makes of himself! No sooner does he open his
mouth than every one recognizes his intellectual feebleness. He seems
unable to grasp the simplest ideas. He stumbles at the first premise,
and lies sprawling at the very threshold of the argument.
"If what I have taken for granted be true," says the chairman, "do not
all the fine things I have been telling you about follow necessarily?"
"But," murmurs the questioner, "the things you take for granted are
just what trouble me. They don't correspond to my experience."
"Poor, feeble minded questioner!" cry the members of the society,
"to think that he is not able to take things for granted! And then
to set up his experience against our constitution and by-laws!"
The Gentle Reader--Quixotism--Samuel M. Crothers.
CONTENTS.
PAGE.
Introduction 3
Bibliography 7
Dissertation 26
Letter of Frederic the Emperor, to Otho, the Illustrious 37
TREATISE.
God, of 38
(Originally Secs. 1-6, later, Chap. I.)
Reasons which have caused mankind to create for themselves an Invisible
Being which has been commonly called God 44
(Originally Secs. 1-9 and x-xi, later Chap. II.)
God, what is 52
(Originally Secs. x-xi, later, Secs. 1-2, Chap. III.)
Religions, what the word signifies, and how and why such a great
number have been introduced in the world 56
(Originally Secs. i-xxiii, later, Secs. 1-8, Chap. IV.)
Moses, of 62
(Originally Secs. ix-x, later, Secs. 1-2, Chap. V.)
Numa Pompilius, of 71
(Originally Secs. xi, later, Chap. VI.)
Jesus Christ, of 72
(Originally Secs. xii, later, Chap. VII.)
Jesus Christ, of the Policy of 75
(Originally Secs. xiii-xvi, later, Secs. 1-6, Chap. VIII.)
Jesus Christ, of the Morals of 80
(Originally Secs. xvii-xviii, later, Secs. 1-3, Chap. IX.)
Jesus Christ, of the Divinity of 84
(Originally Secs, xix-xxi, later, Secs. 1-3, Chap. X.)
Mahomet 88
(Originally Secs. xxii-xxiii, later, Secs. 1-3, Chap. XI.)
Truths, sensible and obvious 93
(Original Secs. i-vi.)
Soul, of the 96
(Original Secs. i-vii.)
Demons, of Spirits called 101
(Original Secs. i-vii.)
Appendicitis 107
Mahomet, Edition "En Suisse," 1793 107
De Tribus Impostoribus, Edition MDIIC 111
(A literal translation of Latin reprint by E. Weller, 1876.)
Cornell University 145
Translations of Latin in the Text 146
The Gentle Reader--Quixotism 149
ERRATA.
P. 5, 2d paragraph, 1st line, Werner should read Weller.
P. 12, line 5, sermonen should read sermonem.
Original Mss., A. D. 1716, Contains--
Dissertation, pp. 26-36, 3300 words French.
Treatise, pp. 37-101, 19800 words French.
-----
Total, 23100 words.
Weller's reprint, 1876, Edition, 1598 contains 5800 words Latin.
NOTES
[1] The History of the Three Infamous Impostors of this Age.
1. Padre Ottomano, a pretended son of the Sultan of Turkey who
flourished about 1650, and who latterly, under the above title,
became a Dominican Friar.
2. Mahomed Bei, alias Joannes Michael Cigala, who masqueraded as a
Prince of the Ottoman family, a descendant of the Emperor Solyman
the Magnificent, and in other characters about 1660.
3. Sabbatai Sevi, the pretended Messiah of the Jews, "the Only and
First-borne Son of God," who amused the Jews and Turks about 1666.
[2] La vie et l'esprit de M. Benoit de Spinosa was published without
the author's name, in Amsterdam 1719. In the "Preface du Copiste" it
is stated that the author of it is not known, but that if a conjecture
might be permitted it might be said, perhaps with certitude, that the
book is the work of the late Mr. Lucas, so famous for his Quintessences
and for his manners and way of living.
Kuno Fischer, in his Descartes und seine Schule. Zweiter Theil,
Heidelberg, 1889, p. 101, says:
"The real author of the work is not known with entire certainty;
probably the author was Lucas, a physician at the Hague, notorious
in his own day; others name as author a certain Vroese."
Freudenthal, in his Die Lebensgeschichte Spinoza's. Leipzig, 1899,
writing of the various conjectures as to the authorship of the book,
states that W. Meyer has lately sought to prove that Johan Louckers,
a Hague attorney, was the author, but that the authorship had not
been settled.
Oettinger in his Bibliographie Biographie Universelle, Bruxelles 1854,
p. 1707, gives Lucas Vroese as the author.
It has also been suggested that Lucas and Vroese were two men and
together wrote the book.
The authority for ascribing the book to Vroese, of whose life no
particulars seem to have been recorded, appears to be the following
passage in the Dictionnaire Historique, par Prosper Marchand, à la
Haye, 1758, v. 1., p. 352:
"A la fin d'une copie manuscrit de ce Traité que j'ai vûe et lûe, on
lui donne pour véritable Auteur a Mr. Vroese, conseiller de la cour
de Brabant à la Haie, dont Aymon et Rousset retouchèrent le langage;
et que ce dernier y ajouta la Dissertation ou Réponse depuis imprimée
chez Scheurleer."
The name "Vroese" appears at the side of the colophon at end of our
translation, but probably as a reference only.
[3] This is probably a Latin edition of the original manuscript from
which our translation was made.--Ed.
[4] See translation Chap. 1 "Of God," first two lines.
[5] DISRAELI'S CURIOSITIES OF LITERATURE.
Title, "Literary Forgeries."
"The Duc de la Valliere and the Abbe de St. Leger, once concerted
together to supply the eager purchaser of literary rarities with
a copy of "De Tribus Impostoribus," a book, by the date, pretended
to have been printed in 1598, though probably a modern forgery of
1698. The title of such a book had long existed by rumor, but never
was a copy seen by man. Works printed with this title have all been
proved to be modern fabrications--a copy however of the 'introuvable'
original was sold at the Duc de la Valliere's sale. The history of this
volume is curious. The Duc and the Abbe having manufactured a text had
it printed in the old Gothic character, under the title 'De Tribus
Impostoribus.' They proposed to put the great bibliopobet, De Bure,
in good humor, whose agency would sanction the imposition. They were
afterwards to dole out copies at 25 louis each, which would have been
a reasonable price for a book which no one ever saw! They invited De
Bure to dinner, flattered and cajoled him, and, as they imagined at
the moment they had wound him up to their pitch, they exhibited their
manufacture--the keen-eyed glance of the renowned cataloguer of the
'Bibliographie Instructive' instantly shot like lightning over it, and
like lightning, destroyed the whole edition. He not only discovered the
forgery but reprobated it! He refused his sanction; and the forging
Duc and Abbe, in confusion suppressed the 'livre introuvable'; but
they owed a grudge to the honest bibliographer and attempted to write
down the work whence the De Bures derive their fame."
[6] The names are noted on title page in pencil.
[7] The French nation recognize the Supreme Being, the Immortality
of the Soul, and the Freedom of Worship.
[8] Treatise of the Dominant Religions.
[9] In old prints Moses is always depicted with horns on his forehead.
[10] When they weep at Rome, they do not laugh in Paris.
[11] There is a measure in everything.
[12] As to the printing of the book they can bring forward no proof
whatever of its having being done prior to this date (1716) and it
is impossible to conceive that Frederick, surrounded as he was by
enemies, would have circulated a work which gave a fair opportunity of
proclaiming his infidelity. It is probable therefore that there were
only two copies, the original one and that sent to Otho of Bavaria.
J. L. R. L.
[13] This phrase is frequently employed to express ecclesiastical
criticism. Its first application however had a more pungent
meaning. The individual here alluded to having boldly
assailed the errors of the Church was attacked one evening by an
assassin. Fortunately the blow did not prove fatal; but the weapon (a
stylus, or dagger, which is also the Latin name for a pen) having been
left in the wound, on his recovery he wore it in his girdle labelled,
"The Theological Stylus," or Pen of the Church. The trenchant powers
of this instrument have more frequently been employed to repress truth,
than to refute argument.
[14] Sep. 20, 1703.
[15] Frederick Barbarossa was Emperor of Germany in 1152 and was
drowned during Crusade in Syria June 10, 1190. He created Henry the
Lion (? Henry VI.) Duke of Bavaria in 1154, expelled him in 1180,
and Henry died 1195.
Otho the Great, Count of Witelspach, was made Duke of Bavaria 1180,
and died 1183. He was the grandfather of Otho the Illustrious, who
gained the Palatinate and was assassinated in 1231. He married the
daughter of Henry the Lion about 1230.
Henry VI succeeded to the Empire on death of his father, Frederick
Barbarossa, 1190, and died 1195--that is if Henry the Lion and Henry
VI are identical.
Frederick II, son of Henry VI, began to reign (?) 1195, and was
living 1243.
The succession of Popes during the period 1152-1254 (Haydn's Dict. of
Dates), was as follows:
Anastasius IV, 1153, Adrian IV, 1154, (Nicholas Brakespeare, the only
Englishman elected Pope. Frederick I. prostrated himself before him,
kissed his foot, held his stirrup, and led the white palfrey on which
he rode.)
Alexander III. 1159, (Canonized Thomas à Becket and resisted Frederick
I.) Victor V. 1159, Pascal III. 1164, Calixtus III. 1168, Lucius
III. 1181.
Urban III. 1185, (opposed Frederick I.) Gregory VIII. (2 months)
1187. Clement III. 1187, proclaimed third Crusade.
Celestin III. 1191. Innocent III. 1198, excommunicated John, King of
England. Honorius III. 1216, learned and pious. Gregory IX. 1227,
preached new Crusade. Celestine IV. 1241. Innocent IV. 1243-1254
(opposed Frederick II.).
If Frederick II. caused pamphlet to be written about 1230, it could
not have been burned by Honorius III., who reigned as Pope 1216-1227,
but by Gregory IX., who reigned 1227-1241, who sent Frederick II. to
the Crusades, upset his affairs while he was gone, and against whom
the "Dissertation" says the pamphlet was written.
[16] Carlyle, in his "History of Frederick II. of Prussia, called
Frederick the Great," mentions Hermann von der Saltza, a new sagacious
Teutschmeister or Hochmeister (so they call the head of the Order)
of the Teutonic Knights, a far-seeing, negotiating man, who during
his long Mastership (A. D. 1210-1239,) is mostly to be found at Venice
and not at Acre or Jerusalem.
He is very great with the busy Kaiser, Frederick II., Barbarossa's
grandson, who has the usual quarrels with the Pope, and is glad of such
a negotiator, statesman as well as armed monk. A Kaiser not gone on the
Crusade, as he had vowed: Kaiser at last suspected of free thinking
even:--in which matters Hermann much serves the Kaiser.--People's
Edition, Boston, 1885, Vol. 1, p. 92.
[17] Pierre des Vignes, suspected of having conspired against the life
of the Emperor, was condemned to lose his eyes, and was handed over to
the inhabitants of Pisa, his cruel enemies: and where despair hastened
his death in an infamous dungeon where he could hold intercourse with
no one.
[18] In "Volney's Lectures on History," it is said: "If a work be
translated it always receives a colouring which is more or less
faint or is vivid according to the opinions and ability of the
Translator." From an examination of other translations of this
Treatise, I am assured that Volney's statement above has actuated
and governed all who have been previously engaged with this work. I
can assure the readers hereof, that the Treatise contained herein is
a literal translation of the manuscript and the notes found therein,
and no liberties have been taken with the text.
Any additional notes from other sources are so marked. A. N.
[19] Moses killed at one time 24,000 men for opposing his law.
[20] It is written in the First Book of Kings, ch. 22, v. 6, that Ahab,
King of Israel, consulted 400 prophets, and found them entirely false
in the success of their predictions.
[21] Man is the noblest work of God--but nobody ever said so but
man.--Fra Elbertus.
[22] So of water, however, it may be subject to generation and
corruption, as long as it is substance it is not subject to separation
and division.
[23] The four first Councils were 1. That of Nice in the year 345,
under the Emperor Constantine the Great, and under Pope Sylvester I.;
2. That of Constantinople in the year 381, under the Emperors Gratian,
Valentinian and Theodore and the Pope Damase I.; 3. That of Ephesus in
the year 431, under the Emperor Theodore, the younger, and Valentinian
and under the Pope Celestin; 4. That of Chalcedon in the year 451,
under Valentinian and Martian, and under Pope Leo I.
[24] These, among us, are the Astrologers and Fanatics.
[25] The Talmud remarks that the Rabbins deliberated whether they
should omit the Book of Proverbs and that of Ecclesiastes from the
number of canonicals, and would have done so had they not found
in several places that they eulogized the Mosaic law. They would
have done the same with the prophecies of Ezekiel had not a certain
Chananias undertook to harmonize them with the same law.
[26] The versions that we have differ greatly in a thousand places,
one with another, until the end of the book.
[27] See Tertullian ante, also Hobbes' Leviathan, C. 12, p. 56.
[28] This word must not be taken in the ordinary sense, for what
is called a magician among learned people means an adroit man, a
skillful charlatan, and a subtle juggler whose entire art consists
in dexterity and skill, and not in any compact with the devil as the
common people believe.
[29] He remained from time to time in a solitary place under pretext
of privately conferring with God, and by this pretended intercourse
with the Divinity he taught them a respect and obedience which was,
in the meanwhile, unlimited.
[30] See Book of Kings, Chapter II.
[31] Romulus drowned himself in the morass of Cherres, and his body not
being found, it was believed that he was raised to heaven and deified.
When Romulus was reviewing his forces in the plain of Caprae there
suddenly arose a thunderstorm during which he was enveloped in so thick
a cloud that he was lost to the view of his army: nor thereafter on
this earth was Romulus seen. Livy I. 1, c. 16.
[32] Empedocles, a celebrated philosopher, threw himself into the
crater of Mount Etna, to cause the belief that, like Romulus, he was
raised to heaven.
[33] It is recorded by Livy (liber II., c. 21,) that there is a grove
through which flowed a perennial stream, taking its origin in a dark
cave, in which Numa was accustomed to meet the goddess, and to receive
instructions as to his political and religious institutions.
[34] Breath or inspiration of the Gods.
[35] The Tartars assert that Genghis Khan was born of a virgin, and
that Foh, according to the Chinese belief, derived his origin from
a virgin rendered pregnant by the rays of the sun.
Since the introduction of the umbrella or sun-shade into the Central
Flowery Kingdom occurrences like the latter have been infrequent.
[36] Celsus says, in Origen, that Jesus Christ was a native of a
little hamlet in Judea, and that his mother was a poor villager who
only existed by her labor. Having been convicted of adultery with
a soldier named Pandira, she was induced to flee by her betrothed,
who was a carpenter by trade, who condoned their offence, and they
wandered miserably from place to place. She was secretly delivered
of Jesus, and finding themselves in want, they were constrained to
flee to Egypt. After several years, his services being of no value
to the Egyptians, he returned to his own country, where, quite proud
of the miracles he knew how to perform, he proclaimed himself God.
Human nature was at those times not fundamentally different from what
it is now, and we need, therefore, not be surprised to hear that one
of the stalwart Roman warriors, whose name was Pandira, fell in love
with one of the dark-eyed daughters of Nazareth, and that the fruit
of their "illegitimate" union was a son whom they called Jehoshua,
and who inherited from his father the manly pride of the Roman,
and from his Jewish mother his almost feminine beauty and modesty.
Of Jehoshua's mother, little is to be said. * * * * * Ignorant,
innocent, and of modest manners, uneducated but kind, sympathetic and
beautiful, Stada, like many others of her sex, was guided more by the
decision of her heart than by the calculations of her intellect. Her
heart yearned for love and she hoped to find in Pandira the realization
of her ideal.--Life of Jehoshua, The Prophet of Nazareth, an Occult
Study and a Key to the Bible. Franz Hartmann, M. D., Boston, 1889.
[37] A beautiful dove overshadowed a virgin; there is nothing
surprising in that. It happened frequently in Lydia, and the swan of
Leda is the counterpart of the dove of Mary.
Qu'un beau Pigeon a tire d'aile When a pretty dove under her wing
Vienne abombrer une Pucelle, Happens to conceal a Virgin,
Rien n'est suprenant en cela; There is nothing surprising in that.
L'on en vit autant en Lydie. The same thing is known in Lydia,
Et le beau Cygne de Leda For the beautiful swan of Leda
Vaut bien le Pigeon de Marie. Is just as good as Mary's pigeon.
[38] In the book of Samuel, chap. vii, it is related that the
Israelites being discontented with the sons of Samuel who judged them,
demanded a King, the same as other nations, with whom they wished
to conform.
[39] Jesus Christ was of the sect of the Pharisees, or the poor,
who were opposed to the Sadducees, who formed the sect of the rich.
[40] By this Norman reply he eluded the question. A Norman never says
yes, or no. Blason populaire de la Normandie.
[41] Vide Boniface VIII. (1294) and Leo X. (1513) Boniface said
that men had the same souls as beasts, and that these human and
bestial souls lived no longer than each other. The Gospel also
says that all other laws teach several virtues and several lies;
for example, a Trinity which is false, the child-birth of a Virgin
which is impossible, and the incarnation and transubstantiation which
are ridiculous. I do not believe, continued he, other than that the
Virgin was a she-ass, and her son the issue of a she-ass.
Leo X. went one day to a room where his treasures were kept, and
exclaimed "we must admit that this fable of Jesus Christ has been
quite profitable to us."
[42] The belief in the Christian doctrine is strange and wild to reason
and human judgment. It is contrary to all Philosophy and discourse of
Truth, as may be seen in all the articles of faith which can neither
be comprehended nor understood by human intellect, for they appear
impossible and quite strange. Mankind, in order to believe and receive
them, must control and subject his reason, submitting his understanding
to the obedience of the faith. St. Paul says that if man considers
and hears philosophy and measures things by the compass of Truth,
he will forsake all, and ridicule it as folly.
That is the avowal made by Charron in a book entitled "The Three
Truths," page 180. Edition of Bordeaux, 1593. (This inserted
note is written on the back of a portion of a letter addressed to
"Prince graaft by de Spiegelstraat. A Amsterdam," postmarked "Ce
4e. Aout. 1746.")
[43] Hermaphrodites.
[44] Which determined the Emperor Julian to abandon the sect of
Nazarenes whose faith he regarded as a vulgar fiction of the human
mind, which he found based solely on a simple tale of Perdiccas.
[45] Also his belief in visions and the legend of his translation
to Heaven.
[46] A friend of the celebrated Golius having asked what the Mahometans
said of their prophet, this wise professor sent him the following
extract which contains an abridgement of the life of that Impostor
taken from a manuscript in the Turkish language: "The Lord Mahomet
Mustapha, of glorious memory, the greatest of the Prophets, was born
in the fortieth year of the Empire of Anal Schirwan, the Just. His
holy nativity happened the twelfth day in the second third of the
month Rabia. Now, after the fortieth year of his age had passed, he
was divinely inspired, received the crown of prophecy and the robe of
Legation, which were brought him from God by the faithful messenger
Gabriel, with instructions to call mankind to Islamism. After this
inspiration from God was received, he dwelt at Mecca for thirteen
years. He left there aged fifty-three years the eighth day of the
month Rabia, which was a Friday, and took refuge at Medina. Now, it was
there, after his retreat the twentieth day of the eleventh month, and
the sixty-third year of his blessed life, he succeeded to the enjoyment
of the divine presence. Some say that he was born while Abelaka, [47]
his father, was yet living, others say after his death. Lady Amina,
a daughter of the Wahabees, gave him for nurse lady Halima, of the
tribe of Beni-Saad. Abdo Imutalib, [47] his grandfather, gave him the
blessed name of Mahomet. He had four sons and four daughters. The sons
were Kasim, Ibrahim, Thajib and Thahir, and the daughters, Fatima,
Omokeltum, Rakia and Zeineb. The companions of this august envoy of
God were Abulekir, Omar, Osman and Ali, all of sacred memory.
[47] These names, Abdul-Motallab and Abdallah, in Arabic, seem to be
rendered Abdo-Imutalib and Abelaka in the Turkish language.--A. N.
[48] This includes Numa Pompilius.--A. N.
[49] Hades.
[50] "Mahomet," says the Count de Boulainvilliers, "was ignorant of
common knowledge, as I believe, but he assuredly knew much of what a
great traveler might acquire with much native wit, when he employed it
usefully. He was not ignorant of his own language, the use of which,
and not by reading, taught him its nicety and beauty. He was not
ignorant of the art of knowing how to render odious what was truly
culpable, and to portray the truth with simple and lively colors in
a manner which could not be forgotten. In fact, all that he has said
is true in comparison with the essential dogmas of religion, but he
has not said all that is true. It is in that particular alone that
our Religion differs from his." He adds further on, "that Mahomet was
neither rude nor barbarous, that he conducted his enterprise with all
the art, delicacy, constancy, intrepidity, and all the other great
qualities which would have actuated Alexander or Cesar were they in
his place." Life of Mahomet, by Count de Boulainvilliers. Book II.,
pp. 266-7-8. Amsterdam Edition, 1731.
[51] Genesis ch. xxviii., v. 18.
[52] (?)Those holding sinecures.
[53] A sect of East Indian philosophers who went about almost naked,
ate no flesh, renounced all bodily pleasures, and simply contemplated
nature.
The "Pre-Adamite doctrine," similar to the above, was published by
Isaac de Peyrere about 1655. These fanatics believed that mankind
lost none of their innocence by the fall of Adam. Both men and
women made their appearance in the streets of Munster, France, in
puris naturalibus, as did our first parents in the Garden of Eden,
before the fruit incident, which brought so much trouble into the
world. The magistrates failed to put them down, and the military had
some difficulty in abolishing this absurdity.--A. N.
[54] An Intercessor, applied to the Holy Spirit.
[55] Average seems to indicate the VI. Commandment.--A. N.
[56] Exodus xxxii, 31, 32. And Moses returned unto the Lord, and
said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them
gods of gold.
Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin, and if not, blot me, I pray
thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
[57] Exodus iv, 24, 25, 26. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut
off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his (?the Lord's) feet,
and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
So he (the Lord) let him (Moses) go: then she said, a bloody husband
thou art, because of the circumcision.
[58] Numbers xx, 12. And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, because
ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of
Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land
which I have given them.
[59] Exodus xxxii. 11. And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said,
Lord why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast
brought forth out of the land of Egypt, with great power, and with
a mighty hand?
Numbers xii. 8. With him (Moses) will I speak mouth to mouth, even
apparent and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord
shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against
my servant Moses?
[60] Exodus xxxiii. 20. Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep
thee in the way, and to bring thee in the place which I have prepared.
[61] Matthew V. Sermon on the Mount, 17. Think not that I am come to
destroy the law, etc. Matt. x, 2? names Apostles.
[62] Deuteronomy xviii, 21, 22. And if thou say in thine heart,
How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow
not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not
spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt
not be afraid of him.
[63] Paul to Timothy (I.) I. 4. Neither give heed to fables and
endless genealogies, etc.
[64] Genesis xxvi, 34, 35. And Esau was forty years old when he took
to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri, the Hittite, and Bashemath the
daughter of Elon, the Hittite, which were a grief of mind unto Isaac
and Rebekah.
Genesis xxviii, 9. Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the
wives which he had, Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham's son,
the sister of Nabajoth, to be his wife.
Genesis xxxvi, 2, 3. Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan,
Adah, the daughter of Elon, the Hittite, and Aholibamah, the daughter
of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon, the Hivite, and Bashemath, Ishmael's
daughter, sister of Nabajoth.
[65] Acts xv. 10. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon
the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able
to bear?
[66] Galatians 3, 4. Even so we when we were children, were in
bondage under the elements of the world: but when the fulness of the
time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under
the law. v. 9. But now after that ye have known God, or rather are
known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements,
whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage.
v. 30. Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? cast out the bond-woman
and her son: for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with
the son of the free-woman.
v. 24. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants;
the one from the mount of Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which
is Agar.
Galatians v. 2, 3. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be
circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to
every man that is circumcised, that is a debtor to do the whole law.
[67] II. Cor. iii., 6-10. Who also hath made us able ministers of the
New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter
killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death,
written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children
of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the
glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall
not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the
ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration
of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious
had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
II. Cor. v. 10. For we must all appear before the judgment seat
of Christ; that everyone may receive the things done in his body,
according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
[68] Acts xvi, 1, 2, 3. Then came he to Derbe and Lystra, and behold,
a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain
woman which was a Jewess, and believed, but his father was a Greek;
which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and
Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him, and took and
circumcised him, because of the Jews which were in those quarters,
for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
End of Project Gutenberg's De Tribus Impostoribus, A. D. 1230, by Anonymous