In 1654, Jean Baptiste Morin, a celebrated doctor and mathematician, wrote a letter under the name of Vincent Panurge, which he addressed to himself in this way, “An epistle to that most eminent physician, John Baptist Morin, concerning the ‘Three Impostors’.[11]” The three impostors to whom he refers were Gassendi, Neure, and Bernier, whom he wished to satirize under this title. Christian Kortholt in 1680 employed the same terms in his work against Hebert, Hobbes, and Spinoza. Such has been the use which the learned have made of this work when they wrote against their opponents, and in this way have they drawn upon the credulity of comparatively ignorant people, who, caring little to examine the evidences, have been deceived at once. Is it possible, that if such a work had really existed, it would not have been refuted; just as they refuted the work concerning the Pre-Adamites,[12] written by M. de la Peyrere,—the discourses of Spinoza, and the publications of Bodin? The “Colloquium Heptaplomeres,” although in manuscript, has been answered; would “The Three Impostors” have met with more favour? How comes it that it has not been condemned, and placed in the Index Expurgatorius, and how has it escaped cremation by the hands of the common hangman? Books against morality have been sometimes tolerated, but those which strongly attack Religion do not escape with impunity. Florimond de Remond, who says that he had seen the book, asserts that he was at that time a youth, old enough perhaps to write fairy tales; he quotes Ramus who had been dead for thirty years, and could not convict him of falsehood; he quotes Osius and Genebrard, but in in vague terms, and without pointing out the passage in their works. He says that they were circulating this work—a work which if it existed, would unquestionably have been put under lock and key. Our opponents may produce a passage from Sir Thomas Browne, who, in the 19th sec. part I. of his work styled “Religio Medici,” translated from English into Latin by a distinguished scholar, uses the following words; “this impious man, the author of this blasphemous work, ‘The Three Impostors,’ although a stranger to every religion, inasmuch as he was neither a Jew, a Mahometan, nor a Christian, was nevertheless evidently not an Atheist.[13]” From this they would infer that he must have seen the book, when he speaks in such terms of its author. Now, Sir Thomas only says that Bernard Ochinus, who in his opinion was the author of the work, (as he hints in a foot note,) was more of a Deist than an Atheist, and that any Deist of ordinary average intellect and information, was capable of planning and executing such a design. Molikius, in a note upon the passage, denies and justly, that this work was written by Ochinus, for they assert that it was written in Latin, and we know that Ochinus never wrote but in Italian; moreover if he had been suspected of having any connection with this work, his enemies, who made so much clamour against his dialogues concerning the Trinity and Polygamy, would not have spared him. But how can we reconcile Browne and Genebrard who consider Ochinus as a Mahometan, and at the same time declare that he was neither a disciple of Moses, nor of Jesus Christ, nor of Mahomet!
Naude, by a strange mistake attributes the work to Villeneuve, a comparatively ignorant writer, and Ernstius declares that at Rome he had learned from Campannelle, that Muret, a polished and accomplished author, had written the work more than two centuries after Villaneuve. Ernstius is mistaken. Campannelle also refutes himself, for in the preface to his work, “Atheism overthrown,” and still more explicitly in his discourse, “Paganism indefensible,” he affirms that this work came from Germany, but that it was the composition of Muret; a statement entirely opposite to that of Florimond de Remond alluded to before, which holds that the work was written in Germany but published elsewhere. Muret has therefore been falsely accused, and stands in need of no apology. They have judged of his religion from his life. The Huguenot party, vexed that after embracing their doctrines he had abandoned them forever, did not spare him on this occasion, and Beza, in his “Ecclesiastical History,” reproaches him with two crimes, the second being Atheism. Julius Scaliger, nettled by a jeu d’esprit of Muret’s against him, has been led to do him injustice[14]. “Muret,” he says maliciously, “would have been a better Christian if he had believed in God; I am aware that he tried to persuade others to do so.” In this way have originated false impressions against Muret. Instead of respecting his exemplary piety, of which he gave striking evidence in the last years of his existence, they set themselves half a century after his death, to blacken his character by accusing him of crimes which were unknown to his most avowed enemies, and with which, in his life-time, we are certain that he never was charged. Some ignorant writers who possess no critical acumen, have impeached without any reason whatever the first individual who occurred to their memory. Stephen Dolet of Orleans, Frances Pucci of Florence, John Milton of London, and Merula, a renegade Mahometan, have done so; they have accused Peter Aretin, merely because he was a fearless and licentious writer, without reflecting that he was an uncultivated man, of no learning and scarcely master of his native tongue. For similar reasons they have blamed Poggio and others, and have even gone so far back as Boccaccio, most likely on account of the third tale in his Decameron, where he recounts the fable of three similar rings, of which he makes a dangerous application to the Jewish, Christian, and Mahometan religions, as if insinuating that they might be embraced indifferently, since it was impossible to decide which of them ought to have the preference. Neither have these writers forgot Machiavel; and Decker impeaches Rabelais. The Dutchman also who translates into French the “Religio Medici” of Sir Thomas Browne, in the notes to his 20th chap. accuses Erasmus as well as Machiavel.
With more apparent reason they attack both Pompanacius and Cardan. The former, in his treatise on the immortality of the soul, where he reasons as a philosopher and speaks abstractly of the Catholic faith—in which (at the end of his work) he solemnly professes himself a believer—is bold enough to add that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul had been propounded by the originators of every religious creed in order to keep their followers in thrall, and that therefore the majority of the human race had been duped. “If the Jewish, Christian, and Mahometan religions,” he continues, “are all three of them impostures, it follows that the half of mankind are mistaken.” This absurd reasoning, in spite of the precautions of Pompanacius, reached Jacques Carpentier, and induced him to exclaim, “Can any thing be conceived of more truly pernicious than this scepticism, coming as it does from a Christian school of theology.[15]”
Cardan goes still farther wrong in the eleventh of his discourses “On Sophistry,” where, after minutely comparing Paganism, Judaism, Christianity, and Mahometanism, and setting the one to contradict the other, without expressing belief in any of them, he finishes rashly in this way; “his igitur arbitrio victoriæ relictes,” that is, he leaves it to chance to decide the victory; an expression however which he himself corrected in the second edition of his work.—This retraction did not save him from being most bitterly attacked three years afterward by Joseph Scaliger, on account of the fearful import of the language he had made use of, and of the indifference it showed on the part of Cardan as to which of the four parties might gain the victory, and as to whether that victory were gained by argument or arms.
In the last article of the work “Naudiana,” which is a rhapsodical compound of blunders and falsehood, there are some confused references to “The Three Impostors.” The author asserts that Ramus had attributed it to Postel; nothing whatever can be found in the writings of Ramus to establish this. Postel was a singular visionary. Henry Stephanus relates that he had been heard to say, that out of the three religions, the Jewish, the Christian, and the Mahometan, a good one might be made. However, in no part of his work does he call in question the mission of Moses, or the divinity of Christ; neither does he venture to maintain in exact terms that the devout Venetian Hospitaller, whom he calls “his mother Jeanne,” would be the Redeemer of women, as Christ had been the Redeemer of men. After explaining that in men there is a masculine part, the animus, and a feminine part, the anima, he has the absurdity to add that both parts were corrupted by sin and that “his mother Jeanne” might restore the feminine as Christ had restored the masculine. The book in which he utters this absurdity was printed at Paris in 1553, and is by no means so rare but that copies may easily be found. From it we can gather that he would have published the other works also, if it had been true that he had reached this pitch of blasphemy. So far from this being the case, he writes (1543) that the book was written by Michael Servetus; and long afterwards he does not scruple to avenge himself on his Huguenot calumniators, by accusing them, in a letter addressed to Masius, (1563) of having themselves printed the work at Caen: “this infamous commentary or discourse against Moses, Christ, and Mahomet, was lately printed at Cæn, by those who profess themselves the keenest supporters of the Calvinistic doctrines.[16]” In the same chapter of “Naudiana,” mention is made of one Barnaud, but in terms so perplexed that little can be drawn from them except that he had seen an octavo work of 98 pages, printed in 1613, entitled “The Geneva Booby.” It did not bear where it had been printed, neither was the author’s name given. Perhaps it might have been written by Henri de Sponde, afterwards Bishop of Pamier; who says, that at that period there lived a physician named Barnaud an Arian, who had composed this treatise. Now this would make it of a comparatively recent date. The only sensible article in “Naudiana” is towards its conclusion, where Naude, a man of vast experience as a bibliologist, is made to declare that he had never seen the work alluded to, that he did not believe such a work had ever been printed, and that he considered every thing which had been said on this subject as mere invention and fable.
To this list may be added that notable atheist Julius Cæsar Vanini, burned at Toulouse under the name of Lucilius Vaninus, who was accused of having circulated this vile work in France some years before he was put to death.
If there are writers so credulous and devoid of common sense as to believe in these incoherencies, asserting that the book was publicly sold in many quarters of Europe, they ought to set the matter at rest by producing a single copy; for it cannot be in the case supposed, that the work is so rarely to be met with. But no person has seen a copy, neither of the edition said to have been published by Christian Wechel at Paris, about the middle of the 16th century, nor of that which they attribute to Nachtegal, as printed at the Hague, 1614 or 1615. Father Theophylus Reynaud states that the former had sunk into extreme poverty from the visitations of heaven; and Muller relates of the latter that he was banished from the Hague with infamy. Bayle in his dictionary (article Wechell) clearly refutes the calumny against this printer; and in regard to Nachtegal, Spizelius informs us that he was a native of Alkmaer, and banished, not for having published this suppositious work, but for having given utterance to other blasphemies. Now, when we look over with attention and patience what Vincent Placcius says in the folio edition of his immense work concerning “Anonymous writers, and authors who write under false names,” and what Christian Kertholt says in his work revised by his son Sebastian regarding “The Three Impostors,” and finally what Struvius advances in his treatise (1706) on “Learned Impostors,” we can find nothing at all to prove that such a work ever existed; and it is astonishing that Struvius, who in spite of the most specious evidence which Tentzelius had offered him to prove its existence, had always maintained the contrary, was at last persuaded to believe that there really was such a work; and that too, for the most frivolous reason which it is possible to conceive.
In the preface of “Atheism Overthrown,” he discovers that the author of this work, in order to vindicate himself from the crime laid to his charge, declares that “The Three Impostors” had been published thirty years before he was born. This is a strange discovery, but it appeared so satisfactory to Struvius that he ceased to doubt in the existence of such a book, because he knew the year in which Campannelle was born (1568.) and knew also that the book was printed thirty years before this, viz. in 1538. Afterwards in pushing their researches farther, they resolved to consider Boccaccio as the author of the work, from a misinterpreted passage in Chap. 2, No. 6, in the “Atheism Overthrown” where the following words occur; “Hence Boccaccio in his impious fables, contends that there is no distinction between the law of Moses, of Christ and of Mahomet, because they are as like each other as the three similar rings.[17]” But does Campannelle, in this passage intend to say that Boccaccio was the author of “The Three Impostors?” So far is this from being the case, that he answers elsewhere the objections of the Atheists against Boccaccio and the book in question; and Struvius himself, in the 9th paragraph of his dissertation on “Learned Impostors” quotes a passage from Ernstius, which states that Campannelle had told him that the book was written by Muret; now Muret having been born in 1526, and the book been printed in 1538, he could only have been 12 years of age; at which time of life we cannot suppose it possible that he was able to write a work of this description. It follows therefore that this book, said to have been written in Latin and printed in Germany, never existed. At no period has there been a printed work, however rarely to be met with, in reference to which very authentic and circumstantial information could not be found.
Although the works of Michael Servetus may never be met with, it has always been well known that they were printed, and moreover where they were printed. Before the publication of the two modern editions of the “Cymbalum Mundi,” composed by Bonnaventure de Perrieres, writing under the assumed name of Thomas du Clevier, who says that he had translated it from the Latin, and of which work only two ancient copies remain, the one in the King’s library and the other in that of M. Bigot at Rouen;—before the publication of the the modern editions, it was an ascertained fact that the work had been printed, and the date and name of the bookseller were known. The case is exactly the same as regards “The Blessings of Christianity, or the Scourge of the Faith,” the author of which, Geoffrey Vallee a native of Orleans, was hanged and burned at Greve, on the 9th February 1573, after having adjured his errors. It is a small octavo work of thirty pages, without date, or the name of the place where it was printed; a trifle, feebly reasoned, and now become so rare that perhaps the copy belonging to Monsieur the Abbe d’Estrees is the only one to be found. But although all these works had absolutely perished, no one could doubt their previous existence, the facts on record concerning them being as true, as those concerning ‘The Three Impostors’ are apocryphal.