Chapter XI: Of Mahomet (2)

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.