Truth
The Three Imposters 2
Abstract
Happy the man who, studying Nature’s laws,
Through known effects can trace the secret cause;
His mind possessing in a quiet state,
Fearless of Fortune, and resigned to Fate.Dryden’s Virgil. Georgics Book II, l. 700
© Dr M D Magee
Contents Updated: Sunday, July 25, 1999
The Three Imposters
Many maintain that there is a God, and that he should be worshipped, before they understand:
- 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 honour given to ruling men.
Their descriptions of what God is betray their own ignorance, for inevitably they find every reason to declare how he differs from other things. There is a creator of heaven and earth, they say, but who is his creator they cannot say and do not understand that they are merely postponing the question.
Some answer 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. By this reasoning, if we do not understand God, therefore there is no God. As if, if I do not understand infinity, therefore there is no infinity. They cannot comprehend that, if there is an infinite being, it one of whose limits they are ignorant.
Some among the sects of Christ, think there is an infinite progression of divine persons, but they have been unable to agree about the extent of their powers. For the son is begotten from infinity, and the holy spirit is breathed from infinity. This begetting and this procession go 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.
They agree that the creation of man can not be prolonged to infinity, which they infer on account of their finite minds. But other beings have been begotten among the higher powers, in a peculiar manner and in great number, as well as among men on earth. Now who of this great number should specially be accepted as God. For every religion admits that there are gods who are mediators, not all with the same powers, whence the principle that there must be one being only, raised above men by his own nature, is evidently demolished.
From a diversity of Gods as creators, a diversity of religions, and a variety of kinds of worship arose. The objection is raised concerning the murders and the concubinage of the pagan Gods. But the pagans have long since considered that these things must be understood as mysteries, and similar things will be found in closer religions.
The slaughter of many tribes was perpetrated by Moses and Joshua at the command of God. The God of Israel demanded of Abraham even human sacrifice though it was not carried out. Either God could not have given the command, or Abraham did not believe it had been given in earnest—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 Mahomet, 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?
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 do not exist, idolatry is merely what each worshipper wants.
They will have it that love springs from kindness and refer it to gratitude, though it chiefly arises from the sympathy of humours. The kind deeds of enemies inspire especially violent hatred although no one of the hypocrites has dared to confess it.
But who could imagine 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 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) while well knowing the weakness of human nature? And yet their descendants are bound to worship and to perform deeds of gratitude, as if for a great favour.
Take 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 foresee 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?
Would you take a sword, with the most certain foreknowledge (which some claim for God inasmuch as there can be no chance with God) that the person before whose eyes you place it, will seize it and inflict on himself and all his descendants the most dreadful death? Those who have still one drop of the milk of human kindness will shudder to do such a deed. What is it to make a command a mockery, if this is not? Yet 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 the Great Mogul is, therefore he must be worshipped. His own people do indeed worship him, but why? Assuredly that his unbridled pride, like that of all despots, may be gratified and for no other reason. For he is worshipped chiefly on account of the fear of his visible power and 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.
This God should be worshipped on account of his love, they say. But 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—for it was permitted to happen.
They are to be redeemed, they say. 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. Even the Barbarians had no such silly idea.
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 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 honoured among us. But why is this honour given? Human nature has regard for mutual wants and, the bestowal of honour 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, 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 honoured without any external honours. Who would say that he wants honour except those who persist in honouring him? The desire for honour is a sign of imperfection and lack of power.
People who can hardly agree among their own small circle of friends demand a consensus of opinion among all races of the world on the honouring of God. Notice that when one is considering the matter, they object that the fundamental reasons for worship are connected with God himself and his works, and not with the elementary constitution of any society. For in Truth 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.
Anyway, who says there is a consensus of opinion among all races that God is, therefore should he be worshipped? The wiser men say so? Really! Who, pray, are the wiser? The high priest, the augurs, the soothsayers of the ancients, Cicero, Caesar—ruling men and their priestly adherents.
Would they let it be known that such practices were to their interests? 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. They lied about their own occasional meetings and association with them, and demanded luxurious things. No one should wonder that priests promulgate such teachings, since this is their method of maintaining their own lives. These are the teachings of the wiser men!
This world may depend on the control of a prime mover. The fact is 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 everything in 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?
We shall not inquire deeply into the nature of good and evil nor the dangers of prejudice and the folly of great fear which springs from preconceived ideas. But whence did they arise? especially since all evil-doing depends on the destruction of the ability of society to fulfil human needs, and social disapproval of those who wish to add to human needs rather than relieve them. Whence everyone fears lest they may incur the hatred and contempt of others, and a refusal to satisfy their wants.
So, they say, those who do not have the light of Holy Scriptures, nevertheless follow the natural light in accordance with the dictates of their consciences. This proves 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?
To gratify their own pride and promote their own advantage, most men of leisure, having had time to consider subtle ideas beyond the comprehension of the ordinary intellect, have devised many subtle principles for which Alexis and Thyrsis, prevented by their pastoral and rustic duties, could have had no leisure. That is why Alexis and Thyrsis have placed confidence in the philosophers of leisure, as if they were wiser though, forsooth, they are more fitted to impose on the foolish.
Hence, good Alexis, go to worship the sylvan Pans, Satyrs and Dianas. 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. They will wish by this account to bind you to his worship, and as a reward for this pious work, because of the reconciliation and favour of those invisible powers, they will demand for their own support, the flower of your flock and your labours as a sacrifice.
And why did not reason tell that they were mistaken in foolishly worshipping statues and stones or empty buildings, as if they were the dwelling places of their Gods? And are we to imagine that, since good women bestowed worship on Francis, Ignatius and Dominicus, at least someone among holy men should be worshipped in all reason? Have they learnt from the light of nature the worship of some superior power no longer visible? Such are the fabrications of our priests of leisure for the more splendid increase of their own means of support.
So, there is no God? Suppose there is. Should he be worshipped? Not because he desires worship as far as he has inscribed it in the heart. What more then? Because we should follow the guide of our nature. But this is known to be imperfect. Why then? To maintain the society of men peacefully? Yet other religious people, following revelation, do not pass more tranquil lives.
Is it rather because God demands of us especially a more precise idea of God? But 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 has a knowledge of God, nor has eye seen him. He dwells in unapproachable light, and from the time of revelation till now, in allegory. Everyone knows how clear an allegory is. Why do you believe that God makes such demands? Or is it from the desire of the intellect to surmount the limitations of its own capacity to know everything more perfectly than it does, or from something else?
Who of you is there who speaks from special revelation? Good God, what a hodgepodge 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? Other priests 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? Look at 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. 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.
What proofs not miraculous, would be sufficient to convince the inhabitants of the world that the books of the Brahmins were proper. In our times this is laughed at and even among those people there would be no argument to establish their religion if it did not have its origin in the brains of their 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 so that his brother might be high priest, and he a great general, a leader and dictator. And of what a people!
Another by milder means, pulling the wool over the eyes of the people under cover of profound sanctity and by the pious deceits of members of their sect, in secret assemblies first got control of ignorant country people. Then, because of the growing strength of the new religion, they got control of those who feared for themselves, or hated the leader of the people.
Then, another, eager for war, feigning miracles, attached to himself the more ferocious people of Asia, they having suffered ill treatment at the hands of commanders of the Christians. Like Moses, with the promise of many victories and favours, 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 pretence of some gain to be derived, is rightly called imposture.
It would be too long and tedious to show the nature of imposture, but even if natural religion is granted and the worship of God is right as far as it is commanded by nature, up to now the leader of every new religion has been suspected of imposture. It is obvious from what has been said how many deceptions have been used in propagating any religion.
Religion and the worship of God according to the promptings of natural light, is consistent with truth and justice. But if anyone wishes to establish any new principles in religion, either new or displeasing, and that by the authority of invisible powers, it will be necessary for him to show his power of reforming, unless he wishes to be considered by all an impostor. He offers opposition to the ideas of all, if not subject to natural religion or the authority of special revelation,.
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. Miracles are rather common among the skilful and the deceivers of men, the lying hypocrites who pursue their own advantage and glory in this way.
It is not worth considering that some reached such a degree of madness that they voluntarily sought death, so that it might be supposed that they despised and conquered everything, like some among the ancient philosophers. Nor is it to be supposed that they were upheld by special divine powers in what they did because of foolish fancies and fond hopes of mountains of gold, rising from a defective judgement.
Their own testimony is not sufficient to reach the truth but has to be compared with others, and other witnesses with them, and their acquaintances and friends, and strangers, and enemies. If we do not know the witnesses, we must consult the witnesses of the witnesses. Then we must have 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 judgement 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.
At this point we must be 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 the 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 and the Christians by Mahomet, because they corrupted the gospels. This is not to be wondered at, since one sect of Christians charges another with corrupting texts of the New Testament. It cannot 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. 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 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. 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 colour.
This precaution also should be taken in the investigation of other sects, so that equal care should be used in an investigation of all. 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 because the Christians ate and drank their God, and to others an object of scorn because they worshipped the head of an ass. Eventually, the report became current that to be a Christian was to be a deadly enemy of God and men. Such tales were either things which had been misunderstood or skilfully told lies.
Having some foundation, they spread abroad because some enemy of that religion had absolutely 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.
Women except a few superior ones, and children have no accurate powers of comprehending mysteries of such a character. Nor do the majority of the masses of the people. For 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. Most adopt the faith of others, of teachers of sacred matters especially, whose knowledge and powers of judgement in sacred matters are considered noteworthy.
And so in any religion this is done, especially by those who cannot 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 judgement and avowed experience, of distinguishing the true from the false. Indeed it ought to be very certain to others, with powers of judgement no less exact, that those teachers have not only the ability to distinguish the true from the false, but the desire as well. 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? When our associates disagree, one of the two disputants will maintain his opinion either because he has not a correct understanding of the matter, and lacks the power of judgement, 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 judgement 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, you must be just as able as he, for otherwise he will be able to impose on you very easily. Then, if he is unknown to you, you must seek the testimony of others, and these again of others, and so on indefinitely, to satisfy yourself of his honesty, his truthfulness, and that he really taught such doctrines, but also 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.
To be evident that any one is a teacher of a true religion or an impostor, we need either personal knowledge 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.
Personal knowledge 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;
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. 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 despite the assertions of friends, or the calumnies of enemies, 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.
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 Or he should be regarded as Moses, and not considered an impostor.
Concerning 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:
Whatever value the testimony of Moses’s 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 favourable testimony, has for Moses’s reputation as a prophet then the same must be true of Mahomet.
And whatever value the books of Moses have for this purpose, the same value the Koran has also. And so, if Moses is vindicated by his work then so should Mahomet.
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.
They maintain that he came and exposed the corruption of the Christians, and established a new covenant. The Koran can be charged with many silly and impious tales but they 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, especially temperance and abstinence from wine. And to the objection 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 objection is often made that the spirit of the Koran is too carnal, and fills eternal life with pleasures of the world and the flesh, polygamy being indiscriminately permitted. Moses also permitted polygamy and in the New Testament life eternal admits of banquets, as, “I shall not taste wine except in the Kingdom of my Father”. The pleasures mentioned in the Song of Solomon in a spiritual sense imply no wrong, nor indeed are they wrong, although the same thing is not said of the Koran.
If we are critical of the words of the Koran, we ought to employ the same severity of criticism against the writings of Moses and others. The arguments quoted from Moses himself (if all those sayings are Moses’, which are commonly attributed to him) in answer to the charge of imposture, do not seem reasonable nor of sufficient weight.
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. What is more, this intercourse of Moses, according to Moses himself is open to the suspicion of imposture, as is to be shown below.
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:
- Fraud, which none but his friends who are not impartial judges of the matter, have palliated. 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.
- The stirring up of rebellion for who can prove it was due to a command of God. The contrary seems clear, since elsewhere Moses is urged to forbid resistance to tyrants.
- Wars, although murder is contrary to the commandments of Moses himself, he indulges in unrestrained plunder of the proper rights of the people living in Palestine. Similarly the high priest in India, or Mahomet in his land, offered the command of God as a pretext to drive 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.
- The teaching concerning the taking of the property of others under the pretence of a loan.
- 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. (Exodus 32:31-32. “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 writte.)”
- Neglect of the commands of God in regard to circumcision. (Exodus 4:24-26. “Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. So he let him go: then she said, a bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.”
- Finally, 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 20:12. “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.)”
Concerning the proof the charge of imposture. 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”. So, 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.
In the case of Mahomet, the testimony of enemies has such weight, that he is considered an Impostor, therefore, if the same can be said of Moses, then he too is an imposter. Furthermore, the 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:
- whether the books, which are said to be those of Moses, are his or
- those of compilers,
- or those of Esdras, especially, and
- whether they were written in the Samaritan, or
- the real Hebrew language, and
- 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.
Instead of discussing these, let us discuss the man.
From Moses’ own testimony and his life and character considered above, if any blame is attached to Mahomet on account of the fierce wars he waged, especially against the innocent, Moses is equally blamable, and in other respects does not seem at all different from Mahomet.
Concerning the authority of his own teaching. Moses boasted of intercourse with God but evidently with too great exaggeration. If anyone boasts of impossible intercourse with God, it is properly doubted and so Moses’s boasts of intercourse with God should be doubted. The proof is he boasts of having seen that what, in both the Old and in the New Testament, no eye can see—God, face to face. (Exodus 32:2. “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 12:8, “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)”
He saw God in his own form, not in a vision nor in a dream, but face to face as friend to friend when he spoke directly to him. The charge is proved from the passages previously cited and from the words of the Apostle, 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 33:20 (“Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee in the place which I have prepared”), 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. These claims can be explained by saying that they were added by a thoughtless compiler, but the whole is thereby rendered doubtful.
Concerning the teachings of Moses, which relate either to the laws or the gospel. Among the laws, 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 characterised by the perfection of God, since:
- they are either superfluous, arguing from the words of Christ, (Mt 5:17. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law.”);
- 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 neighbour’s house, land and property.
As to the teaching of Moses concerning the gospel, he establishes a very foolish and untrustworthy sign of the future great prophet, or Christ. (Deuteronomy. 18:21-22. “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”.)
This sign makes faith impossible for a long time. From this dictum it 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 Judaea, 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 of the city.
Whatever sign 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 by Moses who can hardly therefore have had it from God.
What is said concerning the fulfilment of other prophecies is no objection. For it is the special and genuine sign of that great prophet, that his predictions are fulfilled, but previous to this fulfilment he could not have been considered such a prophet.
Although this sign ought to have been the proof of the divine inspiration of all prophets, the absurd conclusion which follows from it is that prophets who made predictions of indefinite interpretation, using words such as soon, swiftly, near, can by no means be believed. Many prophets predict the last day of the world. Peter said that that day was at hand. Until it comes, in twelve centuries, it has been impossible to consider him a true prophet.
Concerning the histories of Moses. If the Koran is charged with containing many fables, doubtless in Genesis there are many stories to arouse the suspicions of the thoughtful reader.
- 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. The Jewish race is very much addicted to the use of fables, quite comparable other works such as 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. He said that all things were good and yet that it was not good for Adam to be alone. Whence 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. It is impossible for any work created by God not to be good. And the solitude of Adam was not good. Howbeit then that Adam was God’s work, and therefore Moses was not relating the Truth.
Whoever enters upon the study of the genealogies of the Old Testament finds many difficulties in Moses. Paul, in 1 Tim 1:4 (“Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies”) has taught that genealogies are useless, and the study of them unprofitable, and to be avoided. Of what use were so many separate, and 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. Judith, daughter of Berit, the Hittite. Basnath, daughter of Elon, the Hittite (Genesis 26,34); Mahalaad, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nabajoth, who is mentioned after the two former (Genesis 28:9); Ada, daughter of Elon, the Hittite. Akalibamal and Basnath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nabajoth (Genesis 36:2).
The one who is called Ada in Genesis 36 is called Basnath in Gen. 26 namely, the daughter of Elon, the Hittite. The one who is called Basnath in Gen. 36 is called Mahalaad in Gen. 28, the sister of Nabajoth. Mahalaad, in the passage cited in Gen. 28 is said to have been married after Judith and Basnath, previously mentioned in Gen. 26.
These names are not to be reconciled. 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.
(Genesis 26:34-35. “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 28:9. “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 36:2,3. “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, Ishmaells daughter, sister of Nabajoth.”)
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.
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:
Of Peter (Acts 15:10. “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?”) 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.
Of Paul always speaking slightingly of the laws of Moses, which he would not do if he considered them divine.
(Galatians 4:3. “Even so we when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: but when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law”… 4:9. “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”… 4:30. “Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman”… 4:24. “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” 5:2-3. “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”.)
Thus he calls the law Bondage but who would have so called the laws of God. Beggarly commands. 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 4:24. But who would tolerate the saying: “cast out the law of God and its children, and followers”, although Paul himself, as he asserts here chapter Gal 5:2-3, does not want to permit Timothy to be circumcised, but does. Acts 16:1-3. “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”.
Paul calls the law a dead letter, and what else does he not call it?
(2 Cor 3:6-10. “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”.
2 Cor 5:10. “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.”)
Likewise he did not consider its glory worth considering.
(5:10. “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”.)
