8/8/2019 McKee 1944

1/15

XXVIIISAAC DE LA PEYRDRE, A PRECURSOR OFEIGHTEENTH.CENTURY CRITICAL DEISTS

fN tlrc stut ly of th e origins and development of French eighteenth.f century thought, the irnportanceof Isaac de la peyrBre ha s beenstrangelyoverlo

8/8/2019 McKee 1944

2/15

458 Isaac de a PeyrireThe theological world, if taken by surprise,was unanimous in its re-action. Guy Patin lists seven refutations which had appeared up toSeptember 3, 1656,E nd Niceron relates ,c elivre f t tant de bruit jqueplusieurs auteurs travailldrent en mdme tems i le refuter." He citeseleven refutatio's for 1656, one for 1658, as well as three letters bvl{ichard simon.e According to a modern schorar there were thirtv-sixansrvers ithin a generat ion.No references,owever,ar e given,andthisstatemerltmust be subject o caution.r0'rhe constitutional authorities were quick to take action. rn paris theParliament ordered the book burned by the public hangman. This oc-casioned he amusing comment written shortly before this event, whichis found inthe Menagiana.,,Jepriai I 'auteur,qu i 6toit de me samis,di tM6nage, de m'envoyer son Livre avant qu'il fOt mis en lumibre. IIcomprit ma raillerie & me I'envoya avec ce vers d'ovide en changeantle mot d'urbezr en celui tl'ignem. parte nec naideo,sine me, riber iiis inignen.ttLe Peyrdrewa s n th e Lo w cruntries at the t ime, wherehe wasarrestedand imprisoned.Acc-ording o Bayle and Niceron th e arrestan d imprisonment oo k place n l lrussels,r2ut Irat in states ha t he wa simprisoned n Antrverir.Patin goes n to sa y that "les Espagnols 'auroi-en t d6ji secou6, 'eust es tqu' i l est port6 du prince de Conri6;mais ondit qu' i ls ne le airront jamais . , . qu' i l ne se dedise, t n e renonce so nIivre."13layle relatesas a bit of gossip ha t th e arrestand imprisonmentwere nspiredby the Jesuit co'fess.r of the prince of cond6 ,,qui aimoitM. cle Ia Peyrbre i sa Religion prEs, dont il vouloit qu'il changeet.',rrAt all e'ents La Peyrdrewas kept in prison for six months when he wasrelcased n condit ion that he retract. It is not clear whether one of th econdit irns of the releasewa s th e renouncementof calvinism, bu t it isknown that he wa s advised o g o to Rome and throw himself upon th emercy of the pope.Patin sa w him in paris en route fo r Rome and found

1',r- j'*:i, glt1l:r .:y, fort passionn6pour son opinion." patin com-Renautlot, nciennesrttt;""t a" ar", *r"r"rJtrn"^er^

8/8/2019 McKee 1944

3/15

460 Isaac de o Peyri.reseroient r0lezdis que e bon hommeseroitmort. La peirere6toit le meilleurhomme u monde;le lu sdoux,& qu i tranquil lementroyoit or t pe ude chose.It is evident that La peyrdre's retraction was never taken seriouslybyhi s contemporaries. he generar pi' io ' seems o be summed up in tr .fo llorving pitaph rvhichcirculatedafter hi s death:La Peyrdre ci git, ce bon sradliteHuguenot,Catholique, nlinpr6adamite.QuatreReligionsui plurent6 la fois;Et son ndifi(rence toit si peu commune,Qu'aprds uatre-vingts nsqu,il eut i fairechoix;Le bo nhomme art it ,& n'enchoisit asune.lt

At this print it would be well to examine the works which arousedsonruclr discussi.n. of the two, it is the systemarheorogicum, hich is ofcapital importance in trre bistory of the development of critical deism.The critical objectionsexpressedn it were to remain in favor with Frenchdeistic writers for over a century, a confirmation of the continuity of thearguments of critical deism in France from 1655 until the pubiicationof suchworks as Vortaire's ra Bibreenf.nerpriqu\e, re Dictionniire philoso-phique, etc. Also it will be shown that the English deist charles Blountborrowed many of La peyr0re's arguments ior his Oracles oJ Reasot(London, 1693); that the Systemo was probably utilized by ThomasBurnet in his Archaeologiaephilosophicae (London, 1692); and that thedeists collins and rindal may have known these arguments directly orindirectlv-evidence of an early French influenceupon English scepiicalor deistic writers.The 'systema theologicwn is an elaboration of the praeailamitae andpresentsall the arguments of this work as well as much additional ma-terial' Accordingly only the syslemoneed be discussedn this article. LaPeyrlre beginsand ends the treatise with a iong and tiresomeargumentin,which he attempts to reconcilethe doctrine of original sin w-ith theexistence of men before-Adam. He first postulates that men, althoughgood at the time of creation, had within themselves he potentiality (oiemight say the "form") of evil, Si. then, in the ,,naturul,, ,".rr" was theproduct of their "corrupt and rotten nature. The innate infirmity of men,was the real and natural cararnityof men" (p. 10). rn this state of n"ture,much like that of Hobbes,2o,warrs, plagues, and Fevers,, and whatever

It Bayle,p. it . ,rr,767;iccron,!. cit . ,xu,70,I l.r0rn thisarticlewhereverhe sysremahcorogicums quotedhe Englishraneletionl16'55s usetl. a Peyrdre'srewof the stateof nature, ndhis assertionf theeristnccof larvs eforehe Mosaicawsuggesthe poseibrenduencef Hobbes. r. theDccia,chap. vl, sections.5 and10.

Daaid Rhe McKee 461else troubles and affiicts mankind, were the "consequencesof naturalgin." For "Warrs had tbeir original from such, whom, either greedy desireof prey or cruel thirst after revenge, or sacred ambition of Rule stir redup to take arms" (p. 7). "Legal" sin arose,not with the law of Moses,but through Adam's violation of the 6rst law "Eat not of the tree of goodand evil, for on that day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye thedeath." And this "legal law" is not to be taken materially but spi ritually,Had it beenotherwise Adam would have died at the time of his sin. Nowsince this imputation of sin which began only with Adam is a spiritualand not a material one, it can be "imputed backward" to embrace allmen who lived before Adam. And thus the doctrine of original sin is re-conciled o the existenceof men before Adam.The arguments which La Peyrlr e advanced to prove the existenceofmen before Adam wer e many and varied; everything is grist for his mill.As the apologist Renaudot remarked, "Les ignorants, tel qu'estoit l'au-teur du systlme des Pr6adamites, croyent tout ce qui peut favoriserleur imagination" (op, cit,, pref.ace).A case in point is the comment ofLa PeyrBre on the mention by Maimonides that Adam had a masternamed Somboscer," a\d although I give little credit to the Fables of theRabbins yet there is nothing so fabulous but has the taste of ancienttruth" (p. 143). Nor does La Peyrlre rely alone on historical evidence,he will prove his point "out of Genesis tself" (p. 130).In the frrst chapter of Genesis, God created man and woman, "maleand female created he them." Yet in Genesis II it is said "And Goiltram'd Adam." This has been generally interpreted as a more t'specialexplanation of the creation" of man in Chapter r. However, the particle"ond" in the Hebrew is used or "the introduction of new matterr" as inthe first lines of the books of Ezechiel and Jonah. And so it is clear thatthere were two separate creations, In the first the Gentiles were createdand in the second Adam, the father of the Jewish race (pp. 135-136).Thus the passage n Genesisvr which refers to the marriage of the sonsof God and the daughters of men can be explained as the marriage of thesons of Adam, with the daughters of the Gentiles.Next it is objected that "all those things which are set down in thesecond Chapter" could not have been completed in one day, "much lcesil the half of the sixth day, in which God created all creatures, then man.""All those things" are enumrated: Adam is created, he is led into Para-dise, he is given laws, all the creatures of the earth are brought beforehim, Adam namesthem, G od sendsa deep sleep upon him, extracts a rib,for-s Eve, and Eve is brought before him. "If you reckon all these sever-ally" argues La Peyrlre, "not half a day, not a week, not a month willguffice or half of them" (pp. 136-139). Alone the time required to bring

8/8/2019 McKee 1944

4/15

462 Isauc de a Peyrbe{rom India an d Africa, elephantswhich ar e "heavy an d slorv" would beinf initely greater ha n half a day. Add to that the innumerablespeciesof creatures nd fowls which "must swim so much sea,an d passover somuch anrl o corne rom America o Mesopotamia"an d the impossibil i tyof such a migrat ion occurring n so short a t ime becomes bvious o all.Furthermorc, it would be physically impossible or Adam to seeall thecreaturesof the earth and name them in half a day. And unless he "hadthen composecl Dictionary of them for the use of posterity" he surelywould have forgotten many oI thenr after their departure to other lands(pp. 136-139).Much space s devoted to the discussionof the punishment of originalsin, and we are told that the sin of Adam added nothing to the sinfulnature of man; thrt the penalt iesncurredby th e serpent,by woman, bythe earth, and by man are to be understood as merely spiritual penaltiesand not to be taken literally. For it is natural for man to die, Ior theserpeDt o crawl on its belly, or woman to bearchitd n pain, and for th eearth to bring forth thorns and thist les (pp. l-10, 13-16, 298-300),Obviously he statement: ln the day thou eatest, ho u shalt die" is notto be interpreted in a literal fashion, since Adam "was not troubled withthe least disease l l the nine hundred and thirty years he lived, unlessyou will believe him who relates . . that Adam died of the gout" (p. 10).Moreover, the fact t hat God made coats of skins for Adam and Eve whenthey becanreaware of their nakedness, causes La PeyrEre to suggest"that there were in those dayes Curriers, Shoomakers, nd Skinners?"fu .1a7).To the story of Cain La Peyrdre opposesa goodly number of diffi-culties. t is stated that Cain was a husbandman. f so, he required tools,antl thus there lvere "art if iccrs n thoseda1's" .e . me n other than th efamilv of Adam, l imited as it was at that t ime. OtherwiseCain wouldhave been "a verv busybody," digging mines, making furnaces, hen thehammers and the forge necessary or the fabrication of plowshares andalsoof hatchetswith rvhich o cu t th e t imber for "his ploughs,harrows,carts, and the like." A seconddifficulty relates o Abel's death at the handof Cain. For when Cain slew Abel he was afraid and he said to the Lord"Whosoever 6nds me shalt slay me," Now whom had Cain to fear? Withthe death of his brother, there remained only his parents Adam and Evewho would scarcely do him harm. Here we learn that there were laws atthe time, courts and even Judges. I'his difficulty, La Peyr dre modestlyadmits s not his own bu t "very nobly" communicated o him by MichellVfarolles, he al.rbotof Villeloin. lt is founded on the verse n which GodchidesCain fo r hi s ealousyof Abel. "Why art thou angry? And wh y ist l ly counl.enirnceall 'n? If thou dost well, shalt thou not be rewarded?

David Rice McKeebut if th ou doe evil, sin lyeth at the door?" That is to say, adds LaPeyrlre, "i n the gates. . . in the courts. . . for judgement amoDgstEastern people ui;ed to be at the gates." The mention of rewards andpunishment reveals he existenceof laws, the reference o the gates, hatof courts from which is inferred that there were Judges. This was thereason or the flight of Cain who "fled from their jurisdiction . . . to theEast of Eden." There he found a wife, begot a child, and built a city.Here La PeyrEre ntroduces or his purposea legend on the au thority ofno other than Flavius Josephuswho, as a defender of the Jews in hisAntiquities, "would write nothing, which he had not either received inantient tradition, by word of mouth, or gain'd it by reading." Accordingto Josephus,Cain did not "change for a better course of life, but , . . byforce and rapine he increasedbis stock." He gathered together from allparts "companions of his robbery and villany, and became their teacherin all wickedness." And La Peyrdre asks: "What men made up Cain'srobber band?" Where did he find a wife and "with what workmen andcarpenters, did Cain build this city? Of what Citizens was it made up?'lThe solution of all thesedifficulties, I think the reader may alr eady sus-pect, is La Peyrbre's hesis hat the "Gentiles" are a much more ancientrace than the Jews (pp. 146-153).A large part of the Syslemas devoted to the proof of the extreme an-tiquity of the earth. The evidence to suppo rt this contenti on is takenfrom "the most antient and best-esteemed hilosophersand Historians,"Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus,Plato, Strabo, Cicero and others, The greatage of the Phoenicians,Scythians, Egyptians, and Chaldeans s argued,and the Americans, the Chinese,and the inhabitants of India are saidto have recordswhich lar exceed n antiquity those of the Jews (pp. 15F177). The tendenciousquality of his argumentation is clear enough, Ibelieve, from the esteem he showers upon any who favor his thesiswhether it be Maimonides, Herodotus,Strabo,or, of all persons,Josephus.This attitude is particularly evident in an additional argument propoledconcerning the antient creation of the world." Abraham was learned nthe sciences f astronomy, astrology, and magic; in fact he taught themto the Egyptians and thus paved the way for the wisdom of Moses, Now,enquires La Peyr0re, how could the Chaldeans have gained knowledge ofthese sciences n tbe short time between Adam and Abraham, a merenineteen hundred years according to Scaliger. And it left the Egyptians,of the time of Moses only two thousand four hundred and frfty-threeyears to perfect themselves n thos e sciences.Here La Peyrdre discussesat length the sciencesof astronomy, astrology and magic, devoting achapter to each. He reviews the history of astronomy, pointing out tbenecessity or "long observation and experiment" in order to develop the

463

8/8/2019 McKee 1944

5/15

464 Isaac de la Peyriremany different theories concerning the movement of heavenly bodies.Then follow seven pages on the antiquity of astrology gleaned, onegathers, rom the De Annis Clintaclericusof Saumaize,and sevenon theantiquity of magic.Though a believer n neither, or he refers o nativit iesas "idle stories" p. 191)an d declares oncerningmagic hat "i t is no t mydesire ha t al l these hings . . should be believed" (p . 197); none th eless or the purposeof his argumenthe expatiates n their ant iquity an dcomple-xityand seems o derive c

8/8/2019 McKee 1944

6/15

46(t IstLtc dc la Ptyrirclroints out that th e Lcvites rr'erc hosen ong before he death of Aaronto ookaf tcr he ' l 'abernacle .' l 'he colricr ollviously has t . 'mit tcdmarry passages nd misplacedoth-ers. n (lencsis v, rv e ead that Lamech kil led a man to his hurt and ayoung ma n to his gricf. \ 'et no further inforrnation s given concerningthe identity of th e vict im. Likervise n (ienesis x, "Abrahamssoujourn-ing s, i thAb inre l t - ' ch ,i r rgof ( icrar , s misp laced: l -o rt is no t l ike ly ha tth e King n'oulrl us t after Sarah, wh o was an old woman . . . as also(icnesis xvr tho same s tr >be thought of I tebecr:a" pp . 202-210).Th emiru: le of Joshua, t rvhose ommanrl hc sun ancl moon stood st i l l is"nranifest lycopiedout" since he vcrsecouclut lcs Is it not writ ten in th ebook of th e ust7" (p . 20a).I ' Iavingsett led o his sat isfact i

8/8/2019 McKee 1944

7/15

468 Isauc ile la peyrire1'rulv thcy would pity themselves,f they shouldhearor see hose hingswhichare liscoveredu the East a'd West ndies, n this clear_sight",lge, , ulro agreatmanyother ountriesul l of men; o which t is certainha t none f Adam,sposterity ve r rrived p.276).

ln a general way it is clear that the views of La peyr0re are greatlyshaped y th e informationuponantiquity madeavailabieby th e ,I loto.,of th e sixteenthand earry seventeenth enturies,part icularry s."rig.r,saumaizeand Bochart. rt is rikewiseevident that the .royagesof oir.'*-erv have had enormous efiect upon him and that, when iorced to choosebetrveen hi s new geographyan d th e ol d tradit ional learning, ; ;; _h.esitat inglyhowshis preferenceor th e new. He shows amiliJi i ty withth e controversial rotestant iterature,an d with th e biblical .o--.ntur_ies which abounded n his cray.only in the fierd of sciencedoeshe fail tokecp abreastof the new learning. Like so many of his contempor"ri", rri,knowedge of astronomy is satlly out ol date, yet even here when Scrif_ture and scienceare in opposition, his sympathies are clearly with tielatter.La Peyrbre's arguments, despite the disapproval of the divines, wereno t unfavorably eceived y th e contemporaries. uy patin, u. *. h* .seen' was won over to the mai' thesis of the pr^adomiles. rn one letterhe comments, ,Cette opinion me plalt et (ie) me lairoisvolonti.* ; ; ;_suaderqu'elle est vraie, Au moins est_elle elle." Elsewherehe rurote,"Lisez au commencement e la GenEse, hap. 4 ce que di t Cain i Dieuq,i I'avoit nraudit pour avoir tu6 son frEre Abel, et de li . uou, po*r.,t irer,une forte conjecturequ,Adam n' a pa s 6t d le premie. to*au "uonde,mais seulement an s a l,alest ine.i, a Mothe Ie Vayer ao", no tgo so ar, merely stating that the discoveryof new ands ,,a fait mettre , , .su r e tapisde sPr6adamites, ou r accorder eaucoup 'histoires rofanes,avecn6tre sainte Chronologie r)our se ddrnle r es dif f icult6squ i nuir-sent de ce qui se voit dans de nouveauxmondes.,,26Itt the M'moizes of ll' ichel lVfarolles Paris, 1656), several pages sredevoted to t'e exposition of r'a peyrbre's ideas olrowedby a brLf]efuta-t ion. There s evidencc, owever, ha t he rvas ecret ly n sympathy withthe viervs set dowr in tr'teprtadamires. First, Marolles .ite, .oire.tl'without comment a reference rom Herodotus which had been gir;;il_correctly. Secondly, enumerating La peyrbre,s doubts on thl sacredchronology, he introduces the testimony o1 Diog"n., Laertius, not men-tioned by La Peyrdre. Then he refers io the ,,.Lnnallesde la chine,, of'10,000 ears,a different figure from that given in t\e pr\adamitcs, rn thelist of th e dif f icult ies oncerninghe Creafion,Adam an d Eve, Cain,etc.,he nsertsnn addit ionalobject ionno t found in Lrte rtadanites., ,Adam,, i26Iirrr fr11it', see \/. Pinot, op. dt., p. t96; for L1 Mothe le \/a1,er, sec note 23 above.

Dodd Rice McKee 469he writes, "voyant sa femme tirez de son cost6,parle de quitter son plreet sa mbre, & d'adh6rer a sa femme, comme s'il avoit connaissance epbreset de mEres."The argument concerning he existence f laws, courtE,and judges in the time of Cain is mentioned, but no reference s madetoLa Peyrlre's statement that Marolles had conceived the objection. Itis doubtful that the assertion would have been allowed to pass, had itbeen false. Thus we see that Marolles, far from refuting La Peyrbre'rargument, has enlarged upon it, so that he may safely be set down in thePreadamite camp.flOne of the points in La Peyrtsre'swork which particularly infuriatedthe apologists was his acceptance of the "fables" o{ the ancients concerD-ing the antiquity of the world. This, one gathers, was a very sorespot onwhich La Peyrlre had trampled heavily. It should be pointed out thatthe collection of these scattered utterances of the ancients on the on-tiquity of the world, particularly on the hoary past of the Egyptiane andChaldeans, had been a favorite pastime of such French sceptics asMontaigne and La Mothe le Vayer. Even Gassendiwas not above enumer:ating them. Scaliger'a scholarly studies on chronology, while ortho-dox in their conclusions,had also given serious consideration to the his-torical indications in Per sia, Babylon and Egypt. La Peyrlre, as we haveseen, n addition alleged he extremeage of the Scythian and Phoeniciancivilizations, was the first to advance the claim that the inhabitants ofIndia had a chronology more ancient than the Jews, and argued tbe an-tiquity of the Americans, Mexicans, Peruvians and the Chinese. Evi-dently theseobjections made a deep mpression,and t would appear hotLa Peyrlre had much to do with bringing before the public this matter,which was to becomeso popular among later deists.2?A book which appeared three years later, the Eistoriac sinicac dccasprimos (1658) by the Jesuit missionary, Father Martini, confrrmed LaPeyrbre's statement concerning the antiquity of the Chinese n a verysolid way. For Father Martini produced records out of Chinese tertswhich placed the emperor Fou hi on the throne of China as early as 2952r.c., nearly six hundred years before the Flood according o the cbronol-ogy of the Vulgate. Moreover, Fou hiwas versed n astrology, a scieucebased on observations carried out over a long period of time. Tbe con-clusion, before which Father Martini does not hesitate: "Ifanc enim describo, extremam Asiam ante deluvium habitatam fuisse pro certohabeo."28

, Mtmoilcs Paris,1656), p.243-247.?7 oramore etailed iscussionf thissubject eemy study,Sim Tyssol cPotol tdlhc Seunkcnlh-CenturyachgroutulJOit;1,41 airr (Baltimore, 941), p. 28-33.,ESee . Pinot, y'. it.,p.2O1.

8/8/2019 McKee 1944

8/15

47 0 Isaac de la PeyrireThere ma y be found i' the work of Isaac Vossius, Dissertalio .e,craaetalemundi (1659), nmistak'ble evidencc ha t La peyrlre,s argumentsagainst he universalityof th e Fror-,rl av e ha d their ef iect,pari icularlyafter th e support of Mart ini 's rvork. lhough Vossius .it icir", La pei-rire 's theory of the'riadanrites, anclad.pis th e long chr. 'o l.gy of th eSeventy n order to concil iateScripture"n,t Chin".""hirtory, lJoppo...th e view of th e universality of th e Flood using La peyrdre;sargumentthat there s insufi icient im e alrowed fter the i ' tooa to r th . di. ; . . ; i ; ithe various racesand the repopulation of the earth. Also his aigumentthat it would have taken twenty thousandyears or certain ,, laiy,, atnj_mals to reach he ark, seems o be a recollectlon of La peyrbre's objectionagainst he naming of al l th e animals n half a day because f th e t imerequired o bring from rndia an d Africa elephantswhich ar e ,,heavyan dslow'"20 hr.ugh Vossiuswe are given th e rather nterest ingnro.n'ut ionthat La Peyrire's ideas were still in vogue and that he haa " g.;;;;followers whose chief purlJose vas the discovery of the difficurties andcontradict innswhich abound n Scripture. Before he year wa s ou t Vos_siushimself wasaccusedof beinga pieadamite by GeorgeHorn in a workentitled Disserlatiode aeraaetatemundi. vossius reptied and a poremiccontinued or some im e rvith vossiusgett ing th . b.rt of it accordin; ;the con enrporaries.toMany of La Peyrbre's objections are expressedby Spinoza in theTractatustheologico-polilicus, nd,on. .unrroi help feeiing that Spinoramay have been familiar with the pr6ad.amites.spinoza-spear.. or tn.Chinese vho "far surpassall other nations in antiquity," ieclares thatthe floodwas not universal, that the expression the wintlows of heaven,,should not be taken literally, ancl that the cursecast upon the earth be-causeof men's sins is only-a poetical way of speaking. He explains themiracleof the arresting of the sun and moon for Joshua by refraction andth e shadowgoingback on th e su n dial of Ahaz as du e to parhelia.nEvi_dently thesc arguments were not originated by La peyrdre and spinoza

could have found them elsewhere. rowever, the arguments advanced byLa Peyrbre to dispute the Mosaic authorship of the pentateuch are ailfound in Spinoza ogether with many new orres, nd one s tempted to seehere the influenceof La Peyrbre. Bu t spinoza makes no reference o thePrtadamites n his discussionof this matter. r' fact he gives the impres-sion that his doubts on the Mosaic authorship ^rnr" fro- the cryptic" Ihirl., . 245,t0 Ihid,, p1t.203-209. n 1667appeared ' anonymous .eatise, De diloii. unitrsalilalc,in which he universality f the -roodwasarso enied. t is nterestingo note hat whereasBayleattributes t to Vossius, ll iesdu pin assignst to La l,yrire.tr Bohnedition London,1883), , 34 , j5, 56,92-95.

Dauid.Ricc McKee 47 1wordsof Aben Ezra in his commentary on Deuteronomy "beyond Jordan. . , If so be that thou understandest he mystery of the twelve . , . more-over Moseswrote th e law . . . The Canaanitewas there in the land , . .it shall tre revealedon the lfount of Go d . . . then also behold bis bed. hisiron bed, hen shalt ho u know the truth." Thesewords were hrown outas hints, says Spinoza, o draw attention to passages n the Pentateuchevidently written by someone other than Moses.82 he matter is furthercomplicated by the fact that Hobbes in the Lcvi.alhan 1651) denies hatMoses wrote all the Pentateuch in proof of which he cites several pas-sages n it, which refer to events which transpired after Moses death.aNote tbat tbe Leoialhan at that date was available only in English, andwas not translated into Latin until 1668. The apologist, Huet, was thefirst French writer, to my knowledge, o mention Hobbes' attack on theauthenticity of the books of Moses. n the Dernonslrali o wngclica (1679)in order to convict Spinoza of plagiarism he accuseshim of borrowingfrom Hobbes and La PeyrBre (whose work he calls perniciosas). But headvancesno proof beyond the fact that many of the arguments expressedby La Peyrbre are found in Spinoza.q

Ir the Histoire critique du deur Testament (1678) and in the Lettrcschoisiesof Richard Simon, the question is said to be a very old one.Among the Fathers who thought that the Pentateuch and other books ofthe Bible were lost or altered in the time of the captivity, Simon givesTertullian, Theodoret and Clement of Alexandria. St. Jerome seems oincline to a similar opinion, for, in referring to the Pentateuch, he re-marks: "Sive Moysem dicere volueris auctorem Pentateuchi, siveEsdram instauratorem, non recuso." More recent commentators o doubtthe Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, continues Simon, are Masius,Pererius, and Bonfrerius, all of whom 6nd difficulty in attributing toMoses the last chapter of Deuteronomy in which there is reference o thedeath of Moses and to his tomb. Father Alfonso Tostato, the Bishop ofAvila, also pointed out the passage n which Jair is said to possess cer-tain country unto tbis day and also he one n which reference s made tothe iron bed of the giant Og displayed at Rabbath unto this day. Simonconcludes: "C'est un docte Prelat qui parle, & si dans la suite I'auteurdes Pradamites & Spinosa ont fait les mmes observations sur ces deuxpassages,elles ne sont condamnables en elles-mmes,mais on doit seule-ment condamner les cons6quencesque ces duex auteurs en ont tirdes

i Og. c;t.,pp. 2O-127. u Part n, chap. 3.rf See A. Dupront, P.-D. Euel cl I'cxcgiseeomparalisk au XVIF sidcJc Puis, 193)),p. 46; Ellies du Pin also accusesHobbes with Spinoza and La Peyrlrc as the principalculprits in the attack on the authenticity of the books of Moses.Cf. Nnvclk bibliolDqrodcsoukurs uclcsiasliqws(Paris, 1693), r27,3O.

8/8/2019 McKee 1944

9/15

{;s,hi;

47 2 I sutc de a Peyrireco'tre l ' .utorit6 du Pentateuque."6 irnon himself s clearlyof the'pin-i' n that th e bookswereno t entirely ro m Moses,as was JeanLe cleic inthe sentimentsde quelques htologiens de llollande (16s5). But Le clercdisagrecdwith simo' 's thesis ha t th e five bookswere he work of publicscribes, nd claimed that they rverewrit ten by a "sacri6cateur1uif . , ,uAlthough it is evit,lent hat La peyrdre was not the first to attack the.uthenticit l 'c, f th e booksof I\{ 'ses, t woukl seem ha t he was one of thefirst to t l isseminaten France the arguments which rvere o becomesorle 'r to later deists. rhis is corf irrnedby Bossuetwh o in crit icizing hemanuscrilrtof r ' Iuet 'sDemonsl.ruliouangelicauggestshe eliminationofI l 'et 's claim to have been the i irst to establish he authenticity of th e"Li' r,resSacr6s." fhis hatl previ.usly beencione, ays Bossuet,by SaintAugustine, Eusebius,an d Oart l iual Bellarmine; and he adds ,, je croisaussiqu e ceuxqu i on t 6crit contre 'auteurde sprdadamitesauront traitdce sujet."3?

other difficultiesadvanced by La peyrdre receive he attention of theapologists.JacquesAbbadie writes:L'Autcur lu s-vstdrncesPreadamitesravail le on c nvain, or squ epour airev\)irq'e le l\[o'tle est prlus ncie' qu'on ne e croit commun6ment.l nous aitv. ir la comprsit ion e a spherc, t iche de montrer u' i l a falluun tres-grandnombrele si6

8/8/2019 McKee 1944

10/15

471 Isaac le lu PeyrireIn the seventh chapter of the .lrchaeologiae hilosophicaeBurnet ad-vances number of object i.ns n order to show hat the story of the Fallshouldbe treatedas an allegoryan d no t taken iterally.He argues sha dLa Peyrdre ha t Go d to punish th e serpentwould hardly condemn t tocrawl upon it s belly "a thirrg which by nature he ever ha d before., , hi s

ol.rjcct io 'wa s well known, however,an d needn' t have been aken fromLa PeyrDre. urnet alsoargues hat sinceAdam an d Eve sewed ogetherf ig leaves o nrirke hemselves l)rons,one might ,,deduceth e originalofthe' laylor's Trade," and cnquireswhere hey obtainedneedles ince twa s unlikely that the art of working iron was known at such an earlydirte.Where t is sait l ha t Gorl gtve Adam and Eve coats ,madeof tb eskins of animals," Burnet asks, wh o skinned hem?" 'Ihese object ionsrnay have been partly a recollection of La Peyrdre'sargume{rt thatttherelvere ltrt i f icers" n the t ime of Cain, otherwiseCain would have ha d todig minesan d forge mplements or farming and building; part ly of LaPcyrire's suggestion hat if Cod rnade coats of skin for Adam and Eve"there were n thosedays Curriers, Shoo-makers, nd Skinners."Thesesimilarit ics although intercst ing, are hardly conclusive, but in theArchLtcologio.ee c()me porlan argumentwhere he resemblances muchmorr:striking. Burnet, having run over the chief "Heads of th e Historyri f l)a.rn

8/8/2019 McKee 1944

11/15

: iI.i i

476 Isuac de a PcyrArcIlrother?Nay, he w&s ery strongand usty, he fled o the eastof.Edar,got rcompany f rvicLed ersons bouthirn,with whomhe rob'd.He marrieda WiIe,begot Son, nd built a City (p . 0) .OruclesJReason.' ay, t is not known hat Adam, whowas he CriminalandI'ountain(as hey say)of sogreatEvils,ws,s ver somuchas roubledwith thcleast Disease ll those930 Yerrrswhich he lived; unless ou will believehim,wlro elates, ut of I knownot what Author, that Adamdiedof Gout,wherewithhe was roubled rom hisancestors. id Cain all sick whenhe slewhis Brother?No; he wasvery strongand usty, he led o the Eastof Eilen,where eassociatedhimselfwith a packof Lewd Fellows;he set up for the Tradeof Padding, henmarried Wife, legota Son, nd built a City (p . 13 )

A few of the objections ind expres sion n the later English deists, Col-lins and Tindall. Collins accuses osephusof free-thinking and promisesa few irrstances." ccording o Josephus, ontinuesColl ins:[Cainl aftcr a tedious ourneythro several ountries . . settledhis abode, utrvas c, ar from mendingupon his affiiction, hat he went r&ther rom bad torvorsel bandoning imself o all mannerof Outrage,with out any mannerofrcgard o conlmonJustice.He enrich'dhimseif,by Rapineand Violence; ndmadechoice f the most profligate f Monsters or his Companions,nstructingthem n the very Ivlysteryof their own Profession. e corruptedhe Simplicityof former 'imeswith a novel nventiouof Weights ndMeasures,nd excheng'dthe Innocence f that primitivc Generosity nd Candour, or the new rictlsofPolicyand Craft.An

8/8/2019 McKee 1944

12/15

478 Isuuc e lu Pcyrirecarefullyexanrined. rr e questi.rrof chronorogys givenattent ion in th earticle llabylone. Bayle gives the familiar ref"ien

8/8/2019 McKee 1944

13/15

' ' : . .

i ..r ... r:i '

f r : , ',. 1

} ^ t ;f i{1,l t t

48 0 Isau de a Peyrircorigin to Cain, Lamech antl Noah, and were not created in ,,cesdifi6r-cntes R6gions ongtempsavant Adam, colnnle 'a pr6tendu 'auteur de sI '16adamites.6oLe t us return to the clanclest irreanuscript reat ises y examining hervrrrkattributed t. I\.Iirabau , Opiniots iles atciens sur le ttondc, writtenbefore 1722.The Flood was local; n)an has inhabited the globe longerthan Moses thought, a fact supported by the venerable annals of theChinese; nd Mirabaud cont: ludes:,, i1 arattrait du moins qu e e mondeauroit 6t6 habitd plusieurs milliers d'ann6es au-dessusdu temps queMoisc a fix6 pour son commencement."6rThe Eramen critique les apolo-gislesde a religion chrtlienne,completed about 1735,and which, accord-ing to ProfessorWade probably circulated around l74S or 1746,c2e-aliirms many of the old difrculties. In the published edition of. 1767wefind a discussionof the origin of negroes,and of the problem of the dis-pcrsal of "cette multitude tl'hommes" in the short period of time afterNoah. Like La PeyrBre,Vossiusand Lenglet-Dufresnoy he points out thepopulous state of Egypt, China, Scythia and ',la Tartare" less han threehundred years after the l'lood (pp. 205-208).

In tlre rvork attributed to I)umarsais, La Reli.gion hrfilicnneanalysile(about 1742), he records of the Chinese are said to precede he Flood,the negroes o be of a race other than Adam, also the Greenlanders; heFlood is stated to be partial, referencebeing made to the mystery of theolivc branch with green eavesl Moses did not write the Pentateuch; andthe clarkness t the Crucifixion is denied.To this work there were added(about 1749) certain Preu tesor Nolet, among them the Eistoire de Coln.The author complains hat the l,readamites do not go far enough:Ce n'est pas assez our concilierMoyse avec ui-mme,que de supposer, uqu' i ly avoitau ems u meurtre 'Abel t de aconstruct ione avil led,Henoch,un grandnombrede personuesur a terre, parens e Cain, ou enfans 'autresfanril les,omme e souticnnentcs Prdadamites,an d he concludes:L'exposit ion ouche, 'obscuritd,a contradict ion, ' im-possibil i td hysique,subsistent on c oujours dans 'histoirede Cain."6rThe author of. he Eramen dc a Ger)se,whether it be Mme du ChAte-let, Voltaire, or both is a past master in the arguments of critical deism,and so t comesas no surprise hat many of the objections put in circula-tion back in 1655by La Peyrdre erect again their obstinate, unorthodoxheads. he two accounts [ creationgiven n Genesis,27 andil,2l-22,th e author notes,gave is e o the argument ,despr6adamites',1he nam-

60 hiJ., pp.216-248 .r Wade, p.ei l . ,p.211. 6, Ibil l., p.2O2.63 h:r&rcsdc l"r irel (Paris, 1792), tv, l4l, 142, 162, 16.f, 2%,291; a,l* Wade, ol. cil.,56, 16.5, 69 , 179.

Dooid Rhe McKeeing of the animals is a childish story; the punishments nflicted becauseof the Fall are ridiculous; and the story of Cain is examined in detail.The sign with which he was marked confirmed "l'objection des prdada-nrites," for if Adam was the first man, whom had Cain to fear? Further-more, what was the sign "les uns disent que c'6toit un chien. , . les au -tres une clntc au milieu de son front; tout cel a est. . , bon I supposer."The difficulty concerning Lamech is commented on, also that of themarriage of the sons of God to the daughters of men. The Flood is scoftedat, the cataracts n heavenare contrary to physics, and the dove's returnwith a green olive branch is an impossibility: "le long s6jour des arbregsous 'eau, en dut faire mourir la plupart, et retarder de plusieurs moisla slve des autres." In Genesisx, Noah's progeny divide "les lles desnations, chacun suivant sa langue," but in the following chapter this iscontradicted: "il n'y avait qu'une seule angue sur la terre." Many of thepassages n the Pentateuch which Moses could not have written aregiven; the citation from "le livre des guerresdu Seigneur"; the phrase"au dell du jourdain"; the iron bed of Og shown at Rabbath; the citieccalled Jair unto this day. Also the fact that the miracle of the stopping ofthe sun for Joshua s cited out of the "livre des Justes" is evidence hatJoshua did not write the book which bear s his name. The absurdity of thestory of Abimilech and Sarah is mentioned and many of the miracles at-tacked are those in the Pr4ailomiles; the 6ery army sent to Elisho; themiracle of the dial of. Ahaz; the miracle for Joshua; the darlness at theCrucifixion and the star of Bethlehem. Concerning this last it is observed"aucun historien n'en parle," an obiection advanced by La Peyrlre.sIt is rather difficult to be sure that the author oI the Eramcn fu loGcnlse had,no direct knowledge oI the Prtailaniles, but there are indica-tions which point that way, Speaking of the two creations, he followingcomment is made: "Cette double cr6ation de I'homme et de la femme afait croire d quelques uns qu'Adam n'6toit pas le premier homme; et onappelle ceux qui soutiennent cette opinion Prdadomiles." The author isobviously referring to those who believed n the existenceof men beforeAdam, and not to the book. Also the observation that Cain's fear "aencore confirmd l'objection des pr6adamites" loses ts significance since adiscussionollows concerning he nature of the sign with which Cain wasmarked, a subject not treated by La Peyrlre but found in Bayle's articlcCain in the Dictionnaire critQue. Many other difficulties advanced inboth the Prtodamites and the Eramet dc la Genlse,as we have seen, arealso ound elsewhere, .e., the cataractsof heaven, he dovets return with

r. Eramadc aGczlsaMS.Troyes 376),, 1_.16,9, 7-102;t, 13, 4, 8' 99'112-ll4;(MS.Troyes 377),r,9-1O,99.wish o express yappreciationere o Professorra O.Wade rom whom he microfrlrn asborrowed'

481

8/8/2019 McKee 1944

14/15

+8 2. ' f, . . 1 , l: " i ii , ;

*.t.ii i

i i , ' : .

i . i . :

r r J : -

:i' i,'i :,tj.

,,i .1{ i '

. . i ; '. ' : i ;

tarll'.,a;;.$,r,ir,

Isaac de la lteyrircth e greenolive branch, he questionof the authorshipof the pentateuch,and the miracle for Joshua. And in reference o the miracle of the dial ofAhaz, the author remarks that Spinozaexplained t ,,par un e par6lie., '' I 'husdcspite he rather considerable umtrer of object ionscommon toboth rvorks,direct in{luence, lth

8/8/2019 McKee 1944

15/15

4I.{.1 I sLtr-tce la },eyrircI irt tnten. as vrit ten,arrt l nu y havecollaboratedn it s composit ion,rrbu 1ince he aurhor c-rf lte Ex,tnir:nde to Gerase-scemso have no first handknowledgeof trrepr,utrornires,tl'is.on'nron ,iu.t of arguments advancesus i' ', rvaf in th e sorut ionof ou r Jrrobrcnr-' I 'h" rgu-ent that Adamlive