diff options
Diffstat (limited to '3743-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 3743-0.txt | 7346 |
1 files changed, 7346 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/3743-0.txt b/3743-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e7c8053 --- /dev/null +++ b/3743-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,7346 @@ +The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Writings of Thomas Paine, Volume IV., by Thomas Paine + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and +most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions +whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms +of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at +www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you +will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before +using this eBook. + +Title: The Writings of Thomas Paine, Volume IV. + 1794-1796. + +Author: Thomas Paine + +Editor: Moncure Daniel Conway + +Release Date: August 14, 2001 [eBook #3743] +[Most recently updated: March 20, 2021] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: UTF-8 + +Produced by: Norman M. Wolcott and David Widger + +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WRITINGS OF THOMAS PAINE *** + + + + +The Writings of Thomas Paine + +The Age of Reason — Part I and II + +by Thomas Paine + +Collected And Edited By Moncure Daniel Conway + +VOLUME IV. + +(1796) + + +Contents + + EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION + + THE AGE OF REASON — PART I + CHAPTER I. THE AUTHOR’S PROFESSION OF FAITH + CHAPTER II. OF MISSIONS AND REVELATIONS + CHAPTER III. CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS HISTORY + CHAPTER IV. OF THE BASES OF CHRISTIANITY + CHAPTER V. EXAMINATION IN DETAIL OF THE PRECEDING BASES + CHAPTER VI. OF THE TRUE THEOLOGY + CHAPTER VII. EXAMINATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT + CHAPTER VIII. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT + CHAPTER IX. IN WHAT THE TRUE REVELATION CONSISTS + CHAPTER X. CONCERNING GOD, AND THE LIGHTS CAST ON HIS EXISTENCE AND ATTRIBUTES BY THE BIBLE + CHAPTER XI. OF THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHRISTIANS; AND THE TRUE THEOLOGY + CHAPTER XII. THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANISM ON EDUCATION; PROPOSED REFORMS + CHAPTER XIII. COMPARISON OF CHRISTIANISM WITH THE RELIGIOUS IDEAS INSPIRED BY NATURE + CHAPTER XIV. SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE + CHAPTER XV. ADVANTAGES OF THE EXISTENCE OF MANY WORLDS IN EACH SOLAR SYSTEM + CHAPTER XVI. APPLICATION OF THE PRECEDING TO THE SYSTEM OF THE CHRISTIANS + CHAPTER XVII. OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED IN ALL TIME, AND ALMOST UNIVERSALLY, TO DECEIVE THE PEOPLES + RECAPITULATION + + THE AGE OF REASON — PART II + PREFACE + CHAPTER I. THE OLD TESTAMENT + CHAPTER II. THE NEW TESTAMENT + CHAPTER III. CONCLUSION + + + + +EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION + +WITH SOME RESULTS OF RECENT RESEARCHES. + + +In the opening year, 1793, when revolutionary France had beheaded its +king, the wrath turned next upon the King of kings, by whose grace +every tyrant claimed to reign. But eventualities had brought among them +a great English and American heart—Thomas Paine. He had pleaded for +Louis Capet—“Kill the king but spare the man.” Now he +pleaded,—“Disbelieve in the King of kings, but do not confuse with that +idol the Father of Mankind!” + +In Paine’s Preface to the Second Part of “The Age of Reason” he +describes himself as writing the First Part near the close of the year +1793. “I had not finished it more than six hours, in the state it has +since appeared, before a guard came about three in the morning, with an +order signed by the two Committees of Public Safety and Surety General, +for putting me in arrestation.” This was on the morning of December 28. +But it is necessary to weigh the words just quoted—“in the state it has +since appeared.” For on August 5, 1794, Francois Lanthenas, in an +appeal for Paine’s liberation, wrote as follows: “I deliver to Merlin +de Thionville a copy of the last work of T. Payne [The Age of Reason], +formerly our colleague, and in custody since the decree excluding +foreigners from the national representation. This book was written by +the author in the beginning of the year ’93 (old style). I undertook +its translation before the revolution against priests, and it was +published in French about the same time. Couthon, to whom I sent it, +seemed offended with me for having translated this work.” + +Under the frown of Couthon, one of the most atrocious colleagues of +Robespierre, this early publication seems to have been so effectually +suppressed that no copy bearing that date, 1793, can be found in France +or elsewhere. In Paine’s letter to Samuel Adams, printed in the present +volume, he says that he had it translated into French, to stay the +progress of atheism, and that he endangered his life “by opposing +atheism.” The time indicated by Lanthenas as that in which he submitted +the work to Couthon would appear to be the latter part of March, 1793, +the fury against the priesthood having reached its climax in the +decrees against them of March 19 and 26. If the moral deformity of +Couthon, even greater than that of his body, be remembered, and the +readiness with which death was inflicted for the most theoretical +opinion not approved by the “Mountain,” it will appear probable that +the offence given Couthon by Paine’s book involved danger to him and +his translator. On May 31, when the Girondins were accused, the name of +Lanthenas was included, and he barely escaped; and on the same day +Danton persuaded Paine not to appear in the Convention, as his life +might be in danger. Whether this was because of the “Age of Reason,” +with its fling at the “Goddess Nature” or not, the statements of author +and translator are harmonized by the fact that Paine prepared the +manuscript, with considerable additions and changes, for publication in +English, as he has stated in the Preface to Part II. + +A comparison of the French and English versions, sentence by sentence, +proved to me that the translation sent by Lanthenas to Merlin de +Thionville in 1794 is the same as that he sent to Couthon in 1793. This +discovery was the means of recovering several interesting sentences of +the original work. I have given as footnotes translations of such +clauses and phrases of the French work as appeared to be important. +Those familiar with the translations of Lanthenas need not be reminded +that he was too much of a literalist to depart from the manuscript +before him, and indeed he did not even venture to alter it in an +instance (presently considered) where it was obviously needed. Nor +would Lanthenas have omitted any of the paragraphs lacking in his +translation. This original work was divided into seventeen chapters, +and these I have restored, translating their headings into English. The +“Age of Reason” is thus for the first time given to the world with +nearly its original completeness. + +It should be remembered that Paine could not have read the proof of his +“Age of Reason” (Part I.) which went through the press while he was in +prison. To this must be ascribed the permanence of some sentences as +abbreviated in the haste he has described. A notable instance is the +dropping out of his estimate of Jesus the words rendered by Lanthenas +“trop peu imite, trop oublie, trop meconnu.” The addition of these +words to Paine’s tribute makes it the more notable that almost the only +recognition of the human character and life of Jesus by any theological +writer of that generation came from one long branded as an infidel. + +To the inability of the prisoner to give his work any revision must be +attributed the preservation in it of the singular error already alluded +to, as one that Lanthenas, but for his extreme fidelity, would have +corrected. This is Paine’s repeated mention of six planets, and +enumeration of them, twelve years after the discovery of Uranus. Paine +was a devoted student of astronomy, and it cannot for a moment be +supposed that he had not participated in the universal welcome of +Herschel’s discovery. The omission of any allusion to it convinces me +that the astronomical episode was printed from a manuscript written +before 1781, when Uranus was discovered. Unfamiliar with French in +1793, Paine might not have discovered the erratum in Lanthenas’ +translation, and, having no time for copying, he would naturally use as +much as possible of the same manuscript in preparing his work for +English readers. But he had no opportunity of revision, and there +remains an erratum which, if my conjecture be correct, casts a +significant light on the paragraphs in which he alludes to the +preparation of the work. He states that soon after his publication of +“Common Sense” (1776), he “saw the exceeding probability that a +revolution in the system of government would be followed by a +revolution in the system of religion,” and that “man would return to +the pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief of one God and no more.” He +tells Samuel Adams that it had long been his intention to publish his +thoughts upon religion, and he had made a similar remark to John Adams +in 1776. Like the Quakers among whom he was reared Paine could then +readily use the phrase “word of God” for anything in the Bible which +approved itself to his “inner light,” and as he had drawn from the +first Book of Samuel a divine condemnation of monarchy, John Adams, a +Unitarian, asked him if he believed in the inspiration of the Old +Testament. Paine replied that he did not, and at a later period meant +to publish his views on the subject. There is little doubt that he +wrote from time to time on religious points, during the American war, +without publishing his thoughts, just as he worked on the problem of +steam navigation, in which he had invented a practicable method (ten +years before John Fitch made his discovery) without publishing it. At +any rate it appears to me certain that the part of “The Age of Reason” +connected with Paine’s favorite science, astronomy, was written before +1781, when Uranus was discovered. + +Paine’s theism, however invested with biblical and Christian +phraseology, was a birthright. It appears clear from several allusions +in “The Age of Reason” to the Quakers that in his early life, or before +the middle of the eighteenth century, the people so called were +substantially Deists. An interesting confirmation of Paine’s statements +concerning them appears as I write in an account sent by Count Leo +Tolstoi to the London ‘Times’ of the Russian sect called Dukhobortsy +(The Times, October 23, 1895). This sect sprang up in the last century, +and the narrative says: + +“The first seeds of the teaching called afterwards ‘Dukhoborcheskaya’ +were sown by a foreigner, a Quaker, who came to Russia. The fundamental +idea of his Quaker teaching was that in the soul of man dwells God +himself, and that He himself guides man by His inner word. God lives in +nature physically and in man’s soul spiritually. To Christ, as to an +historical personage, the Dukhobortsy do not ascribe great +importance... Christ was God’s son, but only in the sense in which we +call, ourselves ‘sons of God.’ The purpose of Christ’s sufferings was +no other than to show us an example of suffering for truth. The Quakers +who, in 1818, visited the Dukhobortsy, could not agree with them upon +these religious subjects; and when they heard from them their opinion +about Jesus Christ (that he was a man), exclaimed ‘Darkness!’ From the +Old and New Testaments,’ they say, ‘we take only what is useful,’ +mostly the moral teaching.... The moral ideas of the Dukhobortsy are +the following:—All men are, by nature, equal; external distinctions, +whatsoever they may be, are worth nothing. This idea of men’s equality +the Dukhoborts have directed further, against the State authority.... +Amongst themselves they hold subordination, and much more, a +monarchical Government, to be contrary to their ideas.” + +Here is an early Hicksite Quakerism carried to Russia long before the +birth of Elias Hicks, who recovered it from Paine, to whom the American +Quakers refused burial among them. Although Paine arraigned the union +of Church and State, his ideal Republic was religious; it was based on +a conception of equality based on the divine son-ship of every man. +This faith underlay equally his burden against claims to divine +partiality by a “Chosen People,” a Priesthood, a Monarch “by the grace +of God,” or an Aristocracy. Paine’s “Reason” is only an expansion of +the Quaker’s “inner light”; and the greater impression, as compared +with previous republican and deistic writings made by his “Rights of +Man” and “Age of Reason” (really volumes of one work), is partly +explained by the apostolic fervor which made him a spiritual, successor +of George Fox. + +Paine’s mind was by no means skeptical, it was eminently instructive. +That he should have waited until his fifty-seventh year before +publishing his religious convictions was due to a desire to work out +some positive and practicable system to take the place of that which he +believed was crumbling. The English engineer Hall, who assisted Paine +in making the model of his iron bridge, wrote to his friends in +England, in 1786: “My employer has Common Sense enough to disbelieve +most of the common systematic theories of Divinity, but does not seem +to establish any for himself.” But five years later Paine was able to +lay the corner-stone of his temple: “With respect to religion itself, +without regard to names, and as directing itself from the universal +family of mankind to the ‘Divine object of all adoration, it is man +bringing to his Maker the fruits of his heart; and though those fruits +may differ from each other like the fruits of the earth, the grateful +tribute of every one, is accepted.” (“Rights of Man.” See my edition of +Paine’s Writings, ii., p. 326.) Here we have a reappearance of George +Fox confuting the doctor in America who “denied the light and Spirit of +God to be in every one; and affirmed that it was not in the Indians. +Whereupon I called an Indian to us, and asked him ‘whether or not, when +he lied, or did wrong to anyone, there was not something in him that +reproved him for it?’ He said, ‘There was such a thing in him that did +so reprove him; and he was ashamed when he had done wrong, or spoken +wrong.’ So we shamed the doctor before the governor and the people.” +(Journal of George Fox, September 1672.) + +Paine, who coined the phrase “Religion of Humanity” (The Crisis, vii., +1778), did but logically defend it in “The Age of Reason,” by denying a +special revelation to any particular tribe, or divine authority in any +particular creed of church; and the centenary of this much-abused +publication has been celebrated by a great conservative champion of +Church and State, Mr. Balfour, who, in his “Foundations of Belief,” +affirms that “inspiration” cannot be denied to the great Oriental +teachers, unless grapes may be gathered from thorns. + +The centenary of the complete publication of “The Age of Reason,” +(October 25, 1795), was also celebrated at the Church Congress, +Norwich, on October 10, 1895, when Professor Bonney, F.R.S., Canon of +Manchester, read a paper in which he said: “I cannot deny that the +increase of scientific knowledge has deprived parts of the earlier +books of the Bible of the historical value which was generally +attributed to them by our forefathers. The story of Creation in the +Book of Genesis, unless we play fast and loose either with words or +with science, cannot be brought into harmony with what we have learnt +from geology. Its ethnological statements are imperfect, if not +sometimes inaccurate. The stories of the Fall, of the Flood, and of the +Tower of Babel, are incredible in their present form. Some historical +element may underlie many of the traditions in the first eleven +chapters in that book, but this we cannot hope to recover.” Canon +Bonney proceeded to say of the New Testament also, that “the Gospels +are not so far as we know, strictly contemporaneous records, so we must +admit the possibility of variations and even inaccuracies in details +being introduced by oral tradition.” The Canon thinks the interval too +short for these importations to be serious, but that any question of +this kind is left open proves the Age of Reason fully upon us. Reason +alone can determine how many texts are as spurious as the three +heavenly witnesses (i John v. 7), and like it “serious” enough to have +cost good men their lives, and persecutors their charities. When men +interpolate, it is because they believe their interpolation seriously +needed. It will be seen by a note in Part II. of the work, that Paine +calls attention to an interpolation introduced into the first American +edition without indication of its being an editorial footnote. This +footnote was: “The book of Luke was carried by a majority of one only. +Vide Moshelm’s Ecc. History.” Dr. Priestley, then in America, answered +Paine’s work, and in quoting less than a page from the “Age of Reason” +he made three alterations,—one of which changed “church mythologists” +into “Christian mythologists,”—and also raised the editorial footnote +into the text, omitting the reference to Mosheim. Having done this, +Priestley writes: “As to the gospel of Luke being carried by a majority +of one only, it is a legend, if not of Mr. Paine’s own invention, of no +better authority whatever.” And so on with further castigation of the +author for what he never wrote, and which he himself (Priestley) was +the unconscious means of introducing into the text within the year of +Paine’s publication. + +If this could be done, unintentionally by a conscientious and exact +man, and one not unfriendly to Paine, if such a writer as Priestley +could make four mistakes in citing half a page, it will appear not very +wonderful when I state that in a modern popular edition of “The Age of +Reason,” including both parts, I have noted about five hundred +deviations from the original. These were mainly the accumulated efforts +of friendly editors to improve Paine’s grammar or spelling; some were +misprints, or developed out of such; and some resulted from the sale in +London of a copy of Part Second surreptitiously made from the +manuscript. These facts add significance to Paine’s footnote (itself +altered in some editions!), in which he says: “If this has happened +within such a short space of time, notwithstanding the aid of printing, +which prevents the alteration of copies individually; what may not have +happened in a much greater length of time, when there was no printing, +and when any man who could write, could make a written copy, and call +it an original, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.” + +Nothing appears to me more striking, as an illustration of the +far-reaching effects of traditional prejudice, than the errors into +which some of our ablest contemporary scholars have fallen by reason of +their not having studied Paine. Professor Huxley, for instance, +speaking of the freethinkers of the eighteenth century, admires the +acuteness, common sense, wit, and the broad humanity of the best of +them, but says “there is rarely much to be said for their work as an +example of the adequate treatment of a grave and difficult +investigation,” and that they shared with their adversaries “to the +full the fatal weakness of a priori philosophizing.” [NOTE: Science and +Christian Tradition, p. 18 (Lon. ed., 1894).] Professor Huxley does not +name Paine, evidently because he knows nothing about him. Yet Paine +represents the turning-point of the historical freethinking movement; +he renounced the ‘a priori’ method, refused to pronounce anything +impossible outside pure mathematics, rested everything on evidence, and +really founded the Huxleyan school. He plagiarized by anticipation many +things from the rationalistic leaders of our time, from Strauss and +Baur (being the first to expatiate on “Christian Mythology”), from +Renan (being the first to attempt recovery of the human Jesus), and +notably from Huxley, who has repeated Paine’s arguments on the +untrustworthiness of the biblical manuscripts and canon, on the +inconsistencies of the narratives of Christ’s resurrection, and various +other points. None can be more loyal to the memory of Huxley than the +present writer, and it is even because of my sense of his grand +leadership that he is here mentioned as a typical instance of the +extent to which the very elect of free-thought may be unconsciously +victimized by the phantasm with which they are contending. He says that +Butler overthrew freethinkers of the eighteenth century type, but Paine +was of the nineteenth century type; and it was precisely because of his +critical method that he excited more animosity than his deistical +predecessors. He compelled the apologists to defend the biblical +narratives in detail, and thus implicitly acknowledge the tribunal of +reason and knowledge to which they were summoned. The ultimate answer +by police was a confession of judgment. A hundred years ago England was +suppressing Paine’s works, and many an honest Englishman has gone to +prison for printing and circulating his “Age of Reason.” The same views +are now freely expressed; they are heard in the seats of learning, and +even in the Church Congress; but the suppression of Paine, begun by +bigotry and ignorance, is continued in the long indifference of the +representatives of our Age of Reason to their pioneer and founder. It +is a grievous loss to them and to their cause. It is impossible to +understand the religious history of England, and of America, without +studying the phases of their evolution represented in the writings of +Thomas Paine, in the controversies that grew out of them with such +practical accompaniments as the foundation of the Theophilanthropist +Church in Paris and New York, and of the great rationalist wing of +Quakerism in America. + +Whatever may be the case with scholars in our time, those of Paine’s +time took the “Age of Reason” very seriously indeed. Beginning with the +learned Dr. Richard Watson, Bishop of Llandaff, a large number of +learned men replied to Paine’s work, and it became a signal for the +commencement of those concessions, on the part of theology, which have +continued to our time; and indeed the so-called “Broad Church” is to +some extent an outcome of “The Age of Reason.” It would too much +enlarge this Introduction to cite here the replies made to Paine +(thirty-six are catalogued in the British Museum), but it may be +remarked that they were notably free, as a rule, from the personalities +that raged in the pulpits. I must venture to quote one passage from his +very learned antagonist, the Rev. Gilbert Wakefield, B.A., “late Fellow +of Jesus College, Cambridge.” Wakefield, who had resided in London +during all the Paine panic, and was well acquainted with the slanders +uttered against the author of “Rights of Man,” indirectly brands them +in answering Paine’s argument that the original and traditional +unbelief of the Jews, among whom the alleged miracles were wrought, is +an important evidence against them. The learned divine writes: + +“But the subject before us admits of further illustration from the +example of Mr. Paine himself. In this country, where his opposition to +the corruptions of government has raised him so many adversaries, and +such a swarm of unprincipled hirelings have exerted themselves in +blackening his character and in misrepresenting all the transactions +and incidents of his life, will it not be a most difficult, nay an +impossible task, for posterity, after a lapse of 1700 years, if such a +wreck of modern literature as that of the ancient, should intervene, to +identify the real circumstances, moral and civil, of the man? And will +a true historian, such as the Evangelists, be credited at that future +period against such a predominant incredulity, without large and mighty +accessions of collateral attestation? And how transcendently +extraordinary, I had almost said miraculous, will it be estimated by +candid and reasonable minds, that a writer whose object was a +melioration of condition to the common people, and their deliverance +from oppression, poverty, wretchedness, to the numberless blessings of +upright and equal government, should be reviled, persecuted, and burned +in effigy, with every circumstance of insult and execration, by these +very objects of his benevolent intentions, in every corner of the +kingdom?” After the execution of Louis XVI., for whose life Paine +pleaded so earnestly,—while in England he was denounced as an +accomplice in the deed,—he devoted himself to the preparation of a +Constitution, and also to gathering up his religious compositions and +adding to them. This manuscript I suppose to have been prepared in what +was variously known as White’s Hotel or Philadelphia House, in Paris, +No. 7 Passage des Petits Peres. This compilation of early and fresh +manuscripts (if my theory be correct) was labelled, “The Age of +Reason,” and given for translation to Francois Lanthenas in March 1793. +It is entered, in Qudrard (La France Literaire) under the year 1793, +but with the title “L’Age de la Raison” instead of that which it bore +in 1794, “Le Siecle de la Raison.” The latter, printed “Au Burcau de +l’imprimerie, rue du Theatre-Francais, No. 4,” is said to be by “Thomas +Paine, Citoyen et cultivateur de l’Amerique septentrionale, secretaire +du Congres du departement des affaires etrangeres pendant la guerre +d’Amerique, et auteur des ouvrages intitules: LA SENS COMMUN et LES +DROITS DE L’HOMME.” + +When the Revolution was advancing to increasing terrors, Paine, +unwilling to participate in the decrees of a Convention whose sole +legal function was to frame a Constitution, retired to an old mansion +and garden in the Faubourg St. Denis, No. 63. Mr. J.G. Alger, whose +researches in personal details connected with the Revolution are +original and useful, recently showed me in the National Archives at +Paris, some papers connected with the trial of Georgeit, Paine’s +landlord, by which it appears that the present No. 63 is not, as I had +supposed, the house in which Paine resided. Mr. Alger accompanied me to +the neighborhood, but we were not able to identify the house. The +arrest of Georgeit is mentioned by Paine in his essay on +“Forgetfulness” (Writings, iii., 319). When his trial came on one of +the charges was that he had kept in his house “Paine and other +Englishmen,”—Paine being then in prison,—but he (Georgeit) was +acquitted of the paltry accusations brought against him by his Section, +the “Faubourg du Nord.” This Section took in the whole east side of the +Faubourg St. Denis, whereas the present No. 63 is on the west side. +After Georgeit (or Georger) had been arrested, Paine was left alone in +the large mansion (said by Rickman to have been once the hotel of +Madame de Pompadour), and it would appear, by his account, that it was +after the execution (October 31, 1793) Of his friends the Girondins, +and political comrades, that he felt his end at hand, and set about his +last literary bequest to the world,—“The Age of Reason,”—in the state +in which it has since appeared, as he is careful to say. There was +every probability, during the months in which he wrote (November and +December 1793) that he would be executed. His religious testament was +prepared with the blade of the guillotine suspended over him,—a fact +which did not deter pious mythologists from portraying his death-bed +remorse for having written the book. + +In editing Part I. of “The Age of Reason,” I follow closely the first +edition, which was printed by Barrois in Paris from the manuscript, no +doubt under the superintendence of Joel Barlow, to whom Paine, on his +way to the Luxembourg, had confided it. Barlow was an American +ex-clergyman, a speculator on whose career French archives cast an +unfavorable light, and one cannot be certain that no liberties were +taken with Paine’s proofs. + +I may repeat here what I have stated in the outset of my editorial work +on Paine that my rule is to correct obvious misprints, and also any +punctuation which seems to render the sense less clear. And to that I +will now add that in following Paine’s quotations from the Bible I have +adopted the Plan now generally used in place of his occasionally too +extended writing out of book, chapter, and verse. + +Paine was imprisoned in the Luxembourg on December 28, 1793, and +released on November 4, 1794. His liberation was secured by his old +friend, James Monroe (afterwards President), who had succeeded his +(Paine’s) relentless enemy, Gouverneur Morris, as American Minister in +Paris. He was found by Monroe more dead than alive from +semi-starvation, cold, and an abscess contracted in prison, and taken +to the Minister’s own residence. It was not supposed that he could +survive, and he owed his life to the tender care of Mr. and Mrs. +Monroe. It was while thus a prisoner in his room, with death still +hovering over him, that Paine wrote Part Second of “The Age of Reason.” + +The work was published in London by H.D. Symonds on October 25, 1795, +and claimed to be “from the Author’s manuscript.” It is marked as +“Entered at Stationers Hall,” and prefaced by an apologetic note of +“The Bookseller to the Public,” whose commonplaces about avoiding both +prejudice and partiality, and considering “both sides,” need not be +quoted. While his volume was going through the press in Paris, Paine +heard of the publication in London, which drew from him the following +hurried note to a London publisher, no doubt Daniel Isaacs Eaton: + +“SIR,—I have seen advertised in the London papers the second Edition +[part] of the Age of Reason, printed, the advertisement says, from the +Author’s Manuscript, and entered at Stationers Hall. I have never sent +any manuscript to any person. It is therefore a forgery to say it is +printed from the author’s manuscript; and I suppose is done to give the +Publisher a pretence of Copy Right, which he has no title to. + +“I send you a printed copy, which is the only one I have sent to +London. I wish you to make a cheap edition of it. I know not by what +means any copy has got over to London. If any person has made a +manuscript copy I have no doubt but it is full of errors. I wish you +would talk to Mr. ——- upon this subject as I wish to know by what means +this trick has been played, and from whom the publisher has got +possession of any copy. + +“T. PAINE. + +“PARIS, December 4, 1795” + +Eaton’s cheap edition appeared January 1, 1796, with the above letter +on the reverse of the title. The blank in the note was probably +“Symonds” in the original, and possibly that publisher was imposed +upon. Eaton, already in trouble for printing one of Paine’s political +pamphlets, fled to America, and an edition of the “Age of Reason” was +issued under a new title; no publisher appears; it is said to be +“printed for, and sold by all the Booksellers in Great Britain and +Ireland.” It is also said to be “By Thomas Paine, author of several +remarkable performances.” I have never found any copy of this anonymous +edition except the one in my possession. It is evidently the edition +which was suppressed by the prosecution of Williams for selling a copy +of it. + +A comparison with Paine’s revised edition reveals a good many clerical +and verbal errors in Symonds, though few that affect the sense. The +worst are in the preface, where, instead of “1793,” the misleading date +“1790” is given as the year at whose close Paine completed Part +First,—an error that spread far and wide and was fastened on by his +calumnious American “biographer,” Cheetham, to prove his inconsistency. +The editors have been fairly demoralized by, and have altered in +different ways, the following sentence of the preface in Symonds: “The +intolerant spirit of religious persecution had transferred itself into +politics; the tribunals, styled Revolutionary, supplied the place of +the Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the State outdid the Fire and +Faggot of the Church.” The rogue who copied this little knew the care +with which Paine weighed words, and that he would never call +persecution “religious,” nor connect the guillotine with the “State,” +nor concede that with all its horrors it had outdone the history of +fire and faggot. What Paine wrote was: “The intolerant spirit of church +persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, styled +Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition and the Guillotine, +of the Stake.” + +An original letter of Paine, in the possession of Joseph Cowen, +ex-M.P., which that gentleman permits me to bring to light, besides +being one of general interest makes clear the circumstances of the +original publication. Although the name of the correspondent does not +appear on the letter, it was certainly written to Col. John Fellows of +New York, who copyrighted Part I. of the “Age of Reason.” He published +the pamphlets of Joel Barlow, to whom Paine confided his manuscript on +his way to prison. Fellows was afterwards Paine’s intimate friend in +New York, and it was chiefly due to him that some portions of the +author’s writings, left in manuscript to Madame Bonneville while she +was a freethinker were rescued from her devout destructiveness after +her return to Catholicism. The letter which Mr. Cowen sends me, is +dated at Paris, January 20, 1797. + +“SIR,—Your friend Mr. Caritat being on the point of his departure for +America, I make it the opportunity of writing to you. I received two +letters from you with some pamphlets a considerable time past, in which +you inform me of your entering a copyright of the first part of the Age +of Reason: when I return to America we will settle for that matter. + +“As Doctor Franklin has been my intimate friend for thirty years past +you will naturally see the reason of my continuing the connection with +his grandson. I printed here (Paris) about fifteen thousand of the +second part of the Age of Reason, which I sent to Mr. F[ranklin] Bache. +I gave him notice of it in September 1795 and the copy-right by my own +direction was entered by him. The books did not arrive till April +following, but he had advertised it long before. + +“I sent to him in August last a manuscript letter of about 70 pages, +from me to Mr. Washington to be printed in a pamphlet. Mr. Barnes of +Philadelphia carried the letter from me over to London to be forwarded +to America. It went by the ship Hope, Cap: Harley, who since his return +from America told me that he put it into the post office at New York +for Bache. I have yet no certain account of its publication. I mention +this that the letter may be enquired after, in case it has not been +published or has not arrived to Mr. Bache. Barnes wrote to me, from +London 29 August informing me that he was offered three hundred pounds +sterling for the manuscript. The offer was refused because it was my +intention it should not appear till it appeared in America, as that, +and not England was the place for its operation. + +“You ask me by your letter to Mr. Caritat for a list of my several +works, in order to publish a collection of them. This is an undertaking +I have always reserved for myself. It not only belongs to me of right, +but nobody but myself can do it; and as every author is accountable (at +least in reputation) for his works, he only is the person to do it. If +he neglects it in his life-time the case is altered. It is my intention +to return to America in the course of the present year. I shall then +[do] it by subscription, with historical notes. As this work will +employ many persons in different parts of the Union, I will confer with +you upon the subject, and such part of it as will suit you to +undertake, will be at your choice. I have sustained so much loss, by +disinterestedness and inattention to money matters, and by accidents, +that I am obliged to look closer to my affairs than I have done. The +printer (an Englishman) whom I employed here to print the second part +of ‘the Age of Reason’ made a manuscript copy of the work while he was +printing it, which he sent to London and sold. It was by this means +that an edition of it came out in London. + +“We are waiting here for news from America of the state of the federal +elections. You will have heard long before this reaches you that the +French government has refused to receive Mr. Pinckney as minister. +While Mr. Monroe was minister he had the opportunity of softening +matters with this government, for he was in good credit with them tho’ +they were in high indignation at the infidelity of the Washington +Administration. It is time that Mr. Washington retire, for he has +played off so much prudent hypocrisy between France and England that +neither government believes anything he says. + +“Your friend, etc., + +“THOMAS PAINE.” + +It would appear that Symonds’ stolen edition must have got ahead of +that sent by Paine to Franklin Bache, for some of its errors continue +in all modern American editions to the present day, as well as in those +of England. For in England it was only the shilling edition—that +revised by Paine—which was suppressed. Symonds, who ministered to the +half-crown folk, and who was also publisher of replies to Paine, was +left undisturbed about his pirated edition, and the new Society for the +suppression of Vice and Immorality fastened on one Thomas Williams, who +sold pious tracts but was also convicted (June 24, 1797) of having sold +one copy of the “Age of Reason.” Erskine, who had defended Paine at his +trial for the “Rights of Man,” conducted the prosecution of Williams. +He gained the victory from a packed jury, but was not much elated by +it, especially after a certain adventure on his way to Lincoln’s Inn. +He felt his coat clutched and beheld at his feet a woman bathed in +tears. She led him into the small book-shop of Thomas Williams, not yet +called up for judgment, and there he beheld his victim stitching tracts +in a wretched little room, where there were three children, two +suffering with Smallpox. He saw that it would be ruin and even a sort +of murder to take away to prison the husband, who was not a +freethinker, and lamented his publication of the book, and a meeting of +the Society which had retained him was summoned. There was a full +meeting, the Bishop of London (Porteus) in the chair. Erskine reminded +them that Williams was yet to be brought up for sentence, described the +scene he had witnessed, and Williams’ penitence, and, as the book was +now suppressed, asked permission to move for a nominal sentence. Mercy, +he urged, was a part of the Christianity they were defending. Not one +of the Society took his side,—not even “philanthropic” Wilberforce—and +Erskine threw up his brief. This action of Erskine led the Judge to +give Williams only a year in prison instead of the three he said had +been intended. + +While Williams was in prison the orthodox colporteurs were circulating +Erskine’s speech on Christianity, but also an anonymous sermon “On the +Existence and Attributes of the Deity,” all of which was from Paine’s +“Age of Reason,” except a brief “Address to the Deity” appended. This +picturesque anomaly was repeated in the circulation of Paine’s +“Discourse to the Theophilanthropists” (their and the author’s names +removed) under the title of “Atheism Refuted.” Both of these pamphlets +are now before me, and beside them a London tract of one page just sent +for my spiritual benefit. This is headed “A Word of Caution.” It begins +by mentioning the “pernicious doctrines of Paine,” the first being +“that there is No GOD” (sic,) then proceeds to adduce evidences of +divine existence taken from Paine’s works. It should be added that this +one dingy page is the only “survival” of the ancient Paine effigy in +the tract form which I have been able to find in recent years, and to +this no Society or Publisher’s name is attached. + +The imprisonment of Williams was the beginning of a thirty years’ war +for religious liberty in England, in the course of which occurred many +notable events, such as Eaton receiving homage in his pillory at +Choring Cross, and the whole Carlile family imprisoned,—its head +imprisoned more than nine years for publishing the “Age of Reason.” +This last victory of persecution was suicidal. Gentlemen of wealth, not +adherents of Paine, helped in setting Carlile up in business in Fleet +Street, where free-thinking publications have since been sold without +interruption. But though Liberty triumphed in one sense, the “Age of +Reason.” remained to some extent suppressed among those whose attention +it especially merited. Its original prosecution by a Society for the +Suppression of Vice (a device to, relieve the Crown) amounted to a +libel upon a morally clean book, restricting its perusal in families; +and the fact that the shilling book sold by and among humble people was +alone prosecuted, diffused among the educated an equally false notion +that the “Age of Reason” was vulgar and illiterate. The theologians, as +we have seen, estimated more justly the ability of their antagonist, +the collaborator of Franklin, Rittenhouse, and Clymer, on whom the +University of Pennsylvania had conferred the degree of Master of +Arts,—but the gentry confused Paine with the class described by Burke +as “the swinish multitude.” Skepticism, or its free utterance, was +temporarily driven out of polite circles by its complication with the +out-lawed vindicator of the “Rights of Man.” But that long combat has +now passed away. Time has reduced the “Age of Reason” from a flag of +popular radicalism to a comparatively conservative treatise, so far as +its negations are concerned. An old friend tells me that in his youth +he heard a sermon in which the preacher declared that “Tom Paine was so +wicked that he could not be buried; his bones were thrown into a box +which was bandied about the world till it came to a +button-manufacturer; and now Paine is travelling round the world in the +form of buttons!” This variant of the Wandering Jew myth may now be +regarded as unconscious homage to the author whose metaphorical bones +may be recognized in buttons now fashionable, and some even found +useful in holding clerical vestments together. + +But the careful reader will find in Paine’s “Age of Reason” something +beyond negations, and in conclusion I will especially call attention to +the new departure in Theism indicated in a passage corresponding to a +famous aphorism of Kant, indicated by a note in Part II. The discovery +already mentioned, that Part I. was written at least fourteen years +before Part II., led me to compare the two; and it is plain that while +the earlier work is an amplification of Newtonian Deism, based on the +phenomena of planetary motion, the work of 1795 bases belief in God on +“the universal display of himself in the works of the creation and by +that repugnance we feel in ourselves to bad actions, and disposition to +do good ones.” This exaltation of the moral nature of man to be the +foundation of theistic religion, though now familiar, was a hundred +years ago a new affirmation; it has led on a conception of deity +subversive of last-century deism, it has steadily humanized religion, +and its ultimate philosophical and ethical results have not yet been +reached. + + + + +THE AGE OF REASON — PART I + + + + +CHAPTER I. +THE AUTHOR’S PROFESSION OF FAITH. + + +It has been my intention, for several years past, to publish my +thoughts upon religion; I am well aware of the difficulties that attend +the subject, and from that consideration, had reserved it to a more +advanced period of life. I intended it to be the last offering I should +make to my fellow-citizens of all nations, and that at a time when the +purity of the motive that induced me to it could not admit of a +question, even by those who might disapprove the work. + +The circumstance that has now taken place in France, of the total +abolition of the whole national order of priesthood, and of everything +appertaining to compulsive systems of religion, and compulsive articles +of faith, has not only precipitated my intention, but rendered a work +of this kind exceedingly necessary, lest, in the general wreck of +superstition, of false systems of government, and false theology, we +lose sight of morality, of humanity, and of the theology that is true. + +As several of my colleagues, and others of my fellow-citizens of +France, have given me the example of making their voluntary and +individual profession of faith, I also will make mine; and I do this +with all that sincerity and frankness with which the mind of man +communicates with itself. + +I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this +life. + +I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties +consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our +fellow-creatures happy. + +But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in +addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the +things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them. + +I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the +Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the +Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my +own church. + +All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or +Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify +and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. + +I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe +otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. +But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally +faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in +disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not +believe. + +It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express +it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far +corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his +professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared +himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade +of a priest for the sake of gain, and, in order to qualify himself for +that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more +destructive to morality than this? + +Soon after I had published the pamphlet COMMON SENSE, in America, I saw +the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government +would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion. The +adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, +whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited, +by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds, and +upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government +should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and +openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a +revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and +priest-craft would be detected; and man would return to the pure, +unmixed, and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more. + + + + +CHAPTER II. +OF MISSIONS AND REVELATIONS. + + +Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending +some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The +Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their +apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God +was not open to every man alike. + +Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, +or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by +God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God +came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God +(the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches +accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them +all. + +As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I +proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word +‘revelation.’ Revelation when applied to religion, means something +communicated immediately from God to man. + +No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a +communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, +that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed +to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he +tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, +and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is +revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, +consequently, they are not obliged to believe it. + +It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation +that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. +Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After +this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a +revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to +believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same +manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his +word for it that it was made to him. + +When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables +of the commandments from the hand of God, they were not obliged to +believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his +telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some +historian telling me so, the commandments carrying no internal evidence +of divinity with them. They contain some good moral precepts such as +any man qualified to be a lawgiver or a legislator could produce +himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention. [NOTE: +It is, however, necessary to except the declamation which says that God +‘visits the sins of the fathers upon the children’. This is contrary to +every principle of moral justice.—Author.] + +When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven, and brought to +Mahomet by an angel, the account comes to near the same kind of hearsay +evidence and second hand authority as the former. I did not see the +angel myself, and therefore I have a right not to believe it. + +When also I am told that a woman, called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave +out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and +that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I +have a right to believe them or not: such a circumstance required a +much stronger evidence than their bare word for it: but we have not +even this; for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter +themselves. It is only reported by others that they said so. It is +hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not chose to rest my belief upon such +evidence. + +It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given +to the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. He was born when the +heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and +that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. +Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology +were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new +thing at that time to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; +the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar +opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with +hundreds; the story therefore had nothing in it either new, wonderful, +or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed +among the people called Gentiles, or mythologists, and it was those +people only that believed it. The Jews, who had kept strictly to the +belief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen +mythology, never credited the story. + +It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian +Church, sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct +incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed +founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then +followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which +was about twenty or thirty thousand. The statue of Mary succeeded the +statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changed into the +canonization of saints. The Mythologists had gods for everything; the +Christian Mythologists had saints for everything. The church became as +crowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other; and Rome +was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the +idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of +power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to +abolish the amphibious fraud. + + + + +CHAPTER III. +CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS HISTORY. + + +Nothing that is here said can apply, even with the most distant +disrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous +and an amiable man. The morality that he preached and practiced was of +the most benevolent kind; and though similar systems of morality had +been preached by Confucius, and by some of the Greek philosophers, many +years before, by the Quakers since, and by many good men in all ages, +it has not been exceeded by any. + +Jesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage, or +anything else. Not a line of what is called the New Testament is of his +writing. The history of him is altogether the work of other people; and +as to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was the +necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His historians, having +brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to +take him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story +must have fallen to the ground. + +The wretched contrivance with which this latter part is told, exceeds +everything that went before it. The first part, that of the miraculous +conception, was not a thing that admitted of publicity; and therefore +the tellers of this part of the story had this advantage, that though +they might not be credited, they could not be detected. They could not +be expected to prove it, because it was not one of those things that +admitted of proof, and it was impossible that the person of whom it was +told could prove it himself. + +But the resurrection of a dead person from the grave, and his ascension +through the air, is a thing very different, as to the evidence it +admits of, to the invisible conception of a child in the womb. The +resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken place, +admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the ascension +of a balloon, or the sun at noon day, to all Jerusalem at least. A +thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that the proof +and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal; and as the +public visibility of this last related act was the only evidence that +could give sanction to the former part, the whole of it falls to the +ground, because that evidence never was given. Instead of this, a small +number of persons, not more than eight or nine, are introduced as +proxies for the whole world, to say they saw it, and all the rest of +the world are called upon to believe it. But it appears that Thomas did +not believe the resurrection; and, as they say, would not believe +without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will +I; and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other +person, as for Thomas. + +It is in vain to attempt to palliate or disguise this matter. The +story, so far as relates to the supernatural part, has every mark of +fraud and imposition stamped upon the face of it. Who were the authors +of it is as impossible for us now to know, as it is for us to be +assured that the books in which the account is related were written by +the persons whose names they bear. The best surviving evidence we now +have respecting this affair is the Jews. They are regularly descended +from the people who lived in the time this resurrection and ascension +is said to have happened, and they say ‘it is not true.’ It has long +appeared to me a strange inconsistency to cite the Jews as a proof of +the truth of the story. It is just the same as if a man were to say, I +will prove the truth of what I have told you, by producing the people +who say it is false. + +That such a person as Jesus Christ existed, and that he was crucified, +which was the mode of execution at that day, are historical relations +strictly within the limits of probability. He preached most excellent +morality, and the equality of man; but he preached also against the +corruptions and avarice of the Jewish priests, and this brought upon +him the hatred and vengeance of the whole order of priest-hood. The +accusation which those priests brought against him was that of sedition +and conspiracy against the Roman government, to which the Jews were +then subject and tributary; and it is not improbable that the Roman +government might have some secret apprehension of the effects of his +doctrine as well as the Jewish priests; neither is it improbable that +Jesus Christ had in contemplation the delivery of the Jewish nation +from the bondage of the Romans. Between the two, however, this virtuous +reformer and revolutionist lost his life. [NOTE: The French work has +here: “However this may be, for one or the other of these suppositions +this virtuous reformer, this revolutionist, too little imitated, too +much forgotten, too much misunderstood, lost his life.”—Editor. +(Conway)] + + + + +CHAPTER IV. +OF THE BASES OF CHRISTIANITY. + + +It is upon this plain narrative of facts, together with another case I +am going to mention, that the Christian mythologists, calling +themselves the Christian Church, have erected their fable, which for +absurdity and extravagance is not exceeded by anything that is to be +found in the mythology of the ancients. + +The ancient mythologists tell us that the race of Giants made war +against Jupiter, and that one of them threw a hundred rocks against him +at one throw; that Jupiter defeated him with thunder, and confined him +afterwards under Mount Etna; and that every time the Giant turns +himself, Mount Etna belches fire. It is here easy to see that the +circumstance of the mountain, that of its being a volcano, suggested +the idea of the fable; and that the fable is made to fit and wind +itself up with that circumstance. + +The Christian mythologists tell that their Satan made war against the +Almighty, who defeated him, and confined him afterwards, not under a +mountain, but in a pit. It is here easy to see that the first fable +suggested the idea of the second; for the fable of Jupiter and the +Giants was told many hundred years before that of Satan. + +Thus far the ancient and the Christian mythologists differ very little +from each other. But the latter have contrived to carry the matter much +farther. They have contrived to connect the fabulous part of the story +of Jesus Christ with the fable originating from Mount Etna; and, in +order to make all the parts of the story tie together, they have taken +to their aid the traditions of the Jews; for the Christian mythology is +made up partly from the ancient mythology, and partly from the Jewish +traditions. + +The Christian mythologists, after having confined Satan in a pit, were +obliged to let him out again to bring on the sequel of the fable. He is +then introduced into the garden of Eden in the shape of a snake, or a +serpent, and in that shape he enters into familiar conversation with +Eve, who is no ways surprised to hear a snake talk; and the issue of +this tete-a-tate is, that he persuades her to eat an apple, and the +eating of that apple damns all mankind. + +After giving Satan this triumph over the whole creation, one would have +supposed that the church mythologists would have been kind enough to +send him back again to the pit, or, if they had not done this, that +they would have put a mountain upon him, (for they say that their faith +can remove a mountain) or have put him under a mountain, as the former +mythologists had done, to prevent his getting again among the women, +and doing more mischief. But instead of this, they leave him at large, +without even obliging him to give his parole. The secret of which is, +that they could not do without him; and after being at the trouble of +making him, they bribed him to stay. They promised him ALL the Jews, +ALL the Turks by anticipation, nine-tenths of the world beside, and +Mahomet into the bargain. After this, who can doubt the bountifulness +of the Christian Mythology? + +Having thus made an insurrection and a battle in heaven, in which none +of the combatants could be either killed or wounded—put Satan into the +pit—let him out again—given him a triumph over the whole +creation—damned all mankind by the eating of an apple, there Christian +mythologists bring the two ends of their fable together. They represent +this virtuous and amiable man, Jesus Christ, to be at once both God and +man, and also the Son of God, celestially begotten, on purpose to be +sacrificed, because they say that Eve in her longing [NOTE: The French +work has: “yielding to an unrestrained appetite.”—Editor.] had eaten an +apple. + + + + +CHAPTER V. +EXAMINATION IN DETAIL OF THE PRECEDING BASES. + + +Putting aside everything that might excite laughter by its absurdity, +or detestation by its profaneness, and confining ourselves merely to an +examination of the parts, it is impossible to conceive a story more +derogatory to the Almighty, more inconsistent with his wisdom, more +contradictory to his power, than this story is. + +In order to make for it a foundation to rise upon, the inventors were +under the necessity of giving to the being whom they call Satan a power +equally as great, if not greater, than they attribute to the Almighty. +They have not only given him the power of liberating himself from the +pit, after what they call his fall, but they have made that power +increase afterwards to infinity. Before this fall they represent him +only as an angel of limited existence, as they represent the rest. +After his fall, he becomes, by their account, omnipresent. He exists +everywhere, and at the same time. He occupies the whole immensity of +space. + +Not content with this deification of Satan, they represent him as +defeating by stratagem, in the shape of an animal of the creation, all +the power and wisdom of the Almighty. They represent him as having +compelled the Almighty to the direct necessity either of surrendering +the whole of the creation to the government and sovereignty of this +Satan, or of capitulating for its redemption by coming down upon earth, +and exhibiting himself upon a cross in the shape of a man. + +Had the inventors of this story told it the contrary way, that is, had +they represented the Almighty as compelling Satan to exhibit himself on +a cross in the shape of a snake, as a punishment for his new +transgression, the story would have been less absurd, less +contradictory. But, instead of this they make the transgressor triumph, +and the Almighty fall. + +That many good men have believed this strange fable, and lived very +good lives under that belief (for credulity is not a crime) is what I +have no doubt of. In the first place, they were educated to believe it, +and they would have believed anything else in the same manner. There +are also many who have been so enthusiastically enraptured by what they +conceived to be the infinite love of God to man, in making a sacrifice +of himself, that the vehemence of the idea has forbidden and deterred +them from examining into the absurdity and profaneness of the story. +The more unnatural anything is, the more is it capable of becoming the +object of dismal admiration. [NOTE: The French work has “blind and” +preceding dismal.—Editor.] + + + + +CHAPTER VI. +OF THE TRUE THEOLOGY. + + +But if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not +present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair +creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born—a world +furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up +the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? +Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes +on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, +nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects +than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so +intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the +Creator? + +I know that this bold investigation will alarm many, but it would be +paying too great a compliment to their credulity to forbear it on that +account. The times and the subject demand it to be done. The suspicion +that the theory of what is called the Christian church is fabulous, is +becoming very extensive in all countries; and it will be a consolation +to men staggering under that suspicion, and doubting what to believe +and what to disbelieve, to see the subject freely investigated. I +therefore pass on to an examination of the books called the Old and the +New Testament. + + + + +CHAPTER VII. +EXAMINATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. + + +These books, beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelations, +(which, by the bye, is a book of riddles that requires a revelation to +explain it) are, we are told, the word of God. It is, therefore, proper +for us to know who told us so, that we may know what credit to give to +the report. The answer to this question is, that nobody can tell, +except that we tell one another so. The case, however, historically +appears to be as follows: + +When the church mythologists established their system, they collected +all the writings they could find, and managed them as they pleased. It +is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the +writings as now appear under the name of the Old and the New Testament, +are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them; or +whether they added, altered, abridged, or dressed them up. + +Be this as it may, they decided by vote which of the books out of the +collection they had made, should be the WORD OF GOD, and which should +not. They rejected several; they voted others to be doubtful, such as +the books called the Apocrypha; and those books which had a majority of +votes, were voted to be the word of God. Had they voted otherwise, all +the people since calling themselves Christians had believed otherwise; +for the belief of the one comes from the vote of the other. Who the +people were that did all this, we know nothing of. They call themselves +by the general name of the Church; and this is all we know of the +matter. + +As we have no other external evidence or authority for believing these +books to be the word of God, than what I have mentioned, which is no +evidence or authority at all, I come, in the next place, to examine the +internal evidence contained in the books themselves. + +In the former part of this essay, I have spoken of revelation. I now +proceed further with that subject, for the purpose of applying it to +the books in question. + +Revelation is a communication of something, which the person, to whom +that thing is revealed, did not know before. For if I have done a +thing, or seen it done, it needs no revelation to tell me I have done +it, or seen it, nor to enable me to tell it, or to write it. + +Revelation, therefore, cannot be applied to anything done upon earth of +which man is himself the actor or the witness; and consequently all the +historical and anecdotal part of the Bible, which is almost the whole +of it, is not within the meaning and compass of the word revelation, +and, therefore, is not the word of God. + +When Samson ran off with the gate-posts of Gaza, if he ever did so, +(and whether he did or not is nothing to us,) or when he visited his +Delilah, or caught his foxes, or did anything else, what has revelation +to do with these things? If they were facts, he could tell them +himself; or his secretary, if he kept one, could write them, if they +were worth either telling or writing; and if they were fictions, +revelation could not make them true; and whether true or not, we are +neither the better nor the wiser for knowing them. When we contemplate +the immensity of that Being, who directs and governs the +incomprehensible WHOLE, of which the utmost ken of human sight can +discover but a part, we ought to feel shame at calling such paltry +stories the word of God. + +As to the account of the creation, with which the book of Genesis +opens, it has all the appearance of being a tradition which the +Israelites had among them before they came into Egypt; and after their +departure from that country, they put it at the head of their history, +without telling, as it is most probable that they did not know, how +they came by it. The manner in which the account opens, shows it to be +traditionary. It begins abruptly. It is nobody that speaks. It is +nobody that hears. It is addressed to nobody. It has neither first, +second, nor third person. It has every criterion of being a tradition. +It has no voucher. Moses does not take it upon himself by introducing +it with the formality that he uses on other occasions, such as that of +saying, “The Lords spake unto Moses, saying.” + +Why it has been called the Mosaic account of the creation, I am at a +loss to conceive. Moses, I believe, was too good a judge of such +subjects to put his name to that account. He had been educated among +the Egyptians, who were a people as well skilled in science, and +particularly in astronomy, as any people of their day; and the silence +and caution that Moses observes, in not authenticating the account, is +a good negative evidence that he neither told it nor believed it.—The +case is, that every nation of people has been world-makers, and the +Israelites had as much right to set up the trade of world-making as any +of the rest; and as Moses was not an Israelite, he might not chose to +contradict the tradition. The account, however, is harmless; and this +is more than can be said for many other parts of the Bible. + +Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the +cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with +which more than half the Bible [NOTE: It must be borne in mind that by +the “Bible” Paine always means the Old Testament alone.—Editor.] is +filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a +demon, than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has +served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I +sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel. + +We scarcely meet with anything, a few phrases excepted, but what +deserves either our abhorrence or our contempt, till we come to the +miscellaneous parts of the Bible. In the anonymous publications, the +Psalms, and the Book of Job, more particularly in the latter, we find a +great deal of elevated sentiment reverentially expressed of the power +and benignity of the Almighty; but they stand on no higher rank than +many other compositions on similar subjects, as well before that time +as since. + +The Proverbs which are said to be Solomon’s, though most probably a +collection, (because they discover a knowledge of life, which his +situation excluded him from knowing) are an instructive table of +ethics. They are inferior in keenness to the proverbs of the Spaniards, +and not more wise and oeconomical than those of the American Franklin. + +All the remaining parts of the Bible, generally known by the name of +the Prophets, are the works of the Jewish poets and itinerant +preachers, who mixed poetry, anecdote, and devotion together—and those +works still retain the air and style of poetry, though in translation. +[NOTE: As there are many readers who do not see that a composition is +poetry, unless it be in rhyme, it is for their information that I add +this note. + +Poetry consists principally in two things—imagery and composition. The +composition of poetry differs from that of prose in the manner of +mixing long and short syllables together. Take a long syllable out of a +line of poetry, and put a short one in the room of it, or put a long +syllable where a short one should be, and that line will lose its +poetical harmony. It will have an effect upon the line like that of +misplacing a note in a song. + +The imagery in those books called the Prophets appertains altogether to +poetry. It is fictitious, and often extravagant, and not admissible in +any other kind of writing than poetry. + +To show that these writings are composed in poetical numbers, I will +take ten syllables, as they stand in the book, and make a line of the +same number of syllables, (heroic measure) that shall rhyme with the +last word. It will then be seen that the composition of those books is +poetical measure. The instance I shall first produce is from Isaiah:— + + “Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth + ’T is God himself that calls attention forth. + +Another instance I shall quote is from the mournful Jeremiah, to which +I shall add two other lines, for the purpose of carrying out the +figure, and showing the intention of the poet. + + “O, that mine head were waters and mine eyes + Were fountains flowing like the liquid skies; + Then would I give the mighty flood release + And weep a deluge for the human race.”—Author.] + +There is not, throughout the whole book called the Bible, any word that +describes to us what we call a poet, nor any word that describes what +we call poetry. The case is, that the word prophet, to which a later +times have affixed a new idea, was the Bible word for poet, and the +word ‘propesying’ meant the art of making poetry. It also meant the art +of playing poetry to a tune upon any instrument of music. + +We read of prophesying with pipes, tabrets, and horns—of prophesying +with harps, with psalteries, with cymbals, and with every other +instrument of music then in fashion. Were we now to speak of +prophesying with a fiddle, or with a pipe and tabor, the expression +would have no meaning, or would appear ridiculous, and to some people +contemptuous, because we have changed the meaning of the word. + +We are told of Saul being among the prophets, and also that he +prophesied; but we are not told what they prophesied, nor what he +prophesied. The case is, there was nothing to tell; for these prophets +were a company of musicians and poets, and Saul joined in the concert, +and this was called prophesying. + +The account given of this affair in the book called Samuel, is, that +Saul met a company of prophets; a whole company of them! coming down +with a psaltery, a tabret, a pipe, and a harp, and that they +prophesied, and that he prophesied with them. But it appears +afterwards, that Saul prophesied badly, that is, he performed his part +badly; for it is said that an “evil spirit from God [NOTE: As those men +who call themselves divines and commentators are very fond of puzzling +one another, I leave them to contest the meaning of the first part of +the phrase, that of an evil spirit of God. I keep to my text. I keep to +the meaning of the word prophesy.—Author.] came upon Saul, and he +prophesied.” + +Now, were there no other passage in the book called the Bible, than +this, to demonstrate to us that we have lost the original meaning of +the word prophesy, and substituted another meaning in its place, this +alone would be sufficient; for it is impossible to use and apply the +word prophesy, in the place it is here used and applied, if we give to +it the sense which later times have affixed to it. The manner in which +it is here used strips it of all religious meaning, and shews that a +man might then be a prophet, or he might Prophesy, as he may now be a +poet or a musician, without any regard to the morality or the +immorality of his character. The word was originally a term of science, +promiscuously applied to poetry and to music, and not restricted to any +subject upon which poetry and music might be exercised. + +Deborah and Barak are called prophets, not because they predicted +anything, but because they composed the poem or song that bears their +name, in celebration of an act already done. David is ranked among the +prophets, for he was a musician, and was also reputed to be (though +perhaps very erroneously) the author of the Psalms. But Abraham, Isaac, +and Jacob are not called prophets; it does not appear from any accounts +we have, that they could either sing, play music, or make poetry. + +We are told of the greater and the lesser prophets. They might as well +tell us of the greater and the lesser God; for there cannot be degrees +in prophesying consistently with its modern sense. But there are +degrees in poetry, and there-fore the phrase is reconcilable to the +case, when we understand by it the greater and the lesser poets. + +It is altogether unnecessary, after this, to offer any observations +upon what those men, styled prophets, have written. The axe goes at +once to the root, by showing that the original meaning of the word has +been mistaken, and consequently all the inferences that have been drawn +from those books, the devotional respect that has been paid to them, +and the laboured commentaries that have been written upon them, under +that mistaken meaning, are not worth disputing about.—In many things, +however, the writings of the Jewish poets deserve a better fate than +that of being bound up, as they now are, with the trash that +accompanies them, under the abused name of the Word of God. + +If we permit ourselves to conceive right ideas of things, we must +necessarily affix the idea, not only of unchangeableness, but of the +utter impossibility of any change taking place, by any means or +accident whatever, in that which we would honour with the name of the +Word of God; and therefore the Word of God cannot exist in any written +or human language. + +The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is +subject, the want of an universal language which renders translation +necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the +mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of +wilful alteration, are of themselves evidences that human language, +whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the Word of +God.—The Word of God exists in something else. + +Did the book called the Bible excel in purity of ideas and expression +all the books now extant in the world, I would not take it for my rule +of faith, as being the Word of God; because the possibility would +nevertheless exist of my being imposed upon. But when I see throughout +the greatest part of this book scarcely anything but a history of the +grossest vices, and a collection of the most paltry and contemptible +tales, I cannot dishonour my Creator by calling it by his name. + + + + +CHAPTER VIII. +OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. + + +Thus much for the Bible; I now go on to the book called the New +Testament. The new Testament! that is, the ‘new’ Will, as if there +could be two wills of the Creator. + +Had it been the object or the intention of Jesus Christ to establish a +new religion, he would undoubtedly have written the system himself, or +procured it to be written in his life time. But there is no publication +extant authenticated with his name. All the books called the New +Testament were written after his death. He was a Jew by birth and by +profession; and he was the son of God in like manner that every other +person is; for the Creator is the Father of All. + +The first four books, called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do not give +a history of the life of Jesus Christ, but only detached anecdotes of +him. It appears from these books, that the whole time of his being a +preacher was not more than eighteen months; and it was only during this +short time that those men became acquainted with him. They make mention +of him at the age of twelve years, sitting, they say, among the Jewish +doctors, asking and answering them questions. As this was several years +before their acquaintance with him began, it is most probable they had +this anecdote from his parents. From this time there is no account of +him for about sixteen years. Where he lived, or how he employed himself +during this interval, is not known. Most probably he was working at his +father’s trade, which was that of a carpenter. It does not appear that +he had any school education, and the probability is, that he could not +write, for his parents were extremely poor, as appears from their not +being able to pay for a bed when he was born. [NOTE: One of the few +errors traceable to Paine’s not having a Bible at hand while writing +Part I. There is no indication that the family was poor, but the +reverse may in fact be inferred.—Editor.] + +It is somewhat curious that the three persons whose names are the most +universally recorded were of very obscure parentage. Moses was a +foundling; Jesus Christ was born in a stable; and Mahomet was a mule +driver. The first and the last of these men were founders of different +systems of religion; but Jesus Christ founded no new system. He called +men to the practice of moral virtues, and the belief of one God. The +great trait in his character is philanthropy. + +The manner in which he was apprehended shows that he was not much +known, at that time; and it shows also that the meetings he then held +with his followers were in secret; and that he had given over or +suspended preaching publicly. Judas could no otherways betray him than +by giving information where he was, and pointing him out to the +officers that went to arrest him; and the reason for employing and +paying Judas to do this could arise only from the causes already +mentioned, that of his not being much known, and living concealed. + +The idea of his concealment, not only agrees very ill with his reputed +divinity, but associates with it something of pusillanimity; and his +being betrayed, or in other words, his being apprehended, on the +information of one of his followers, shows that he did not intend to be +apprehended, and consequently that he did not intend to be crucified. + +The Christian mythologists tell us that Christ died for the sins of the +world, and that he came on Purpose to die. Would it not then have been +the same if he had died of a fever or of the small pox, of old age, or +of anything else? + +The declaratory sentence which, they say, was passed upon Adam, in case +he ate of the apple, was not, that thou shalt surely be crucified, but, +thou shale surely die. The sentence was death, and not the manner of +dying. Crucifixion, therefore, or any other particular manner of dying, +made no part of the sentence that Adam was to suffer, and consequently, +even upon their own tactic, it could make no part of the sentence that +Christ was to suffer in the room of Adam. A fever would have done as +well as a cross, if there was any occasion for either. + +This sentence of death, which, they tell us, was thus passed upon Adam, +must either have meant dying naturally, that is, ceasing to live, or +have meant what these mythologists call damnation; and consequently, +the act of dying on the part of Jesus Christ, must, according to their +system, apply as a prevention to one or other of these two things +happening to Adam and to us. + +That it does not prevent our dying is evident, because we all die; and +if their accounts of longevity be true, men die faster since the +crucifixion than before: and with respect to the second explanation, +(including with it the natural death of Jesus Christ as a substitute +for the eternal death or damnation of all mankind,) it is impertinently +representing the Creator as coming off, or revoking the sentence, by a +pun or a quibble upon the word death. That manufacturer of, quibbles, +St. Paul, if he wrote the books that bear his name, has helped this +quibble on by making another quibble upon the word Adam. He makes there +to be two Adams; the one who sins in fact, and suffers by proxy; the +other who sins by proxy, and suffers in fact. A religion thus +interlarded with quibble, subterfuge, and pun, has a tendency to +instruct its professors in the practice of these arts. They acquire the +habit without being aware of the cause. + +If Jesus Christ was the being which those mythologists tell us he was, +and that he came into this world to suffer, which is a word they +sometimes use instead of ‘to die,’ the only real suffering he could +have endured would have been ‘to live.’ His existence here was a state +of exilement or transportation from heaven, and the way back to his +original country was to die.—In fine, everything in this strange system +is the reverse of what it pretends to be. It is the reverse of truth, +and I become so tired of examining into its inconsistencies and +absurdities, that I hasten to the conclusion of it, in order to proceed +to something better. + +How much, or what parts of the books called the New Testament, were +written by the persons whose names they bear, is what we can know +nothing of, neither are we certain in what language they were +originally written. The matters they now contain may be classed under +two heads: anecdote, and epistolary correspondence. + +The four books already mentioned, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are +altogether anecdotal. They relate events after they had taken place. +They tell what Jesus Christ did and said, and what others did and said +to him; and in several instances they relate the same event +differently. Revelation is necessarily out of the question with respect +to those books; not only because of the disagreement of the writers, +but because revelation cannot be applied to the relating of facts by +the persons who saw them done, nor to the relating or recording of any +discourse or conversation by those who heard it. The book called the +Acts of the Apostles (an anonymous work) belongs also to the anecdotal +part. + +All the other parts of the New Testament, except the book of enigmas, +called the Revelations, are a collection of letters under the name of +epistles; and the forgery of letters has been such a common practice in +the world, that the probability is at least equal, whether they are +genuine or forged. One thing, however, is much less equivocal, which +is, that out of the matters contained in those books, together with the +assistance of some old stories, the church has set up a system of +religion very contradictory to the character of the person whose name +it bears. It has set up a religion of pomp and of revenue in pretended +imitation of a person whose life was humility and poverty. + +The invention of a purgatory, and of the releasing of souls therefrom, +by prayers, bought of the church with money; the selling of pardons, +dispensations, and indulgences, are revenue laws, without bearing that +name or carrying that appearance. But the case nevertheless is, that +those things derive their origin from the proxysm of the crucifixion, +and the theory deduced therefrom, which was, that one person could +stand in the place of another, and could perform meritorious services +for him. The probability, therefore, is, that the whole theory or +doctrine of what is called the redemption (which is said to have been +accomplished by the act of one person in the room of another) was +originally fabricated on purpose to bring forward and build all those +secondary and pecuniary redemptions upon; and that the passages in the +books upon which the idea of theory of redemption is built, have been +manufactured and fabricated for that purpose. Why are we to give this +church credit, when she tells us that those books are genuine in every +part, any more than we give her credit for everything else she has told +us; or for the miracles she says she has performed? That she could +fabricate writings is certain, because she could write; and the +composition of the writings in question, is of that kind that anybody +might do it; and that she did fabricate them is not more inconsistent +with probability, than that she should tell us, as she has done, that +she could and did work miracles. + +Since, then, no external evidence can, at this long distance of time, +be produced to prove whether the church fabricated the doctrine called +redemption or not, (for such evidence, whether for or against, would be +subject to the same suspicion of being fabricated,) the case can only +be referred to the internal evidence which the thing carries of itself; +and this affords a very strong presumption of its being a fabrication. +For the internal evidence is, that the theory or doctrine of redemption +has for its basis an idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral +justice. + +If I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me +in prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it +for me. But if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case +is changed. Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty even +if the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is +to destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself. +It is then no longer justice. It is indiscriminate revenge. + +This single reflection will show that the doctrine of redemption is +founded on a mere pecuniary idea corresponding to that of a debt which +another person might pay; and as this pecuniary idea corresponds again +with the system of second redemptions, obtained through the means of +money given to the church for pardons, the probability is that the same +persons fabricated both the one and the other of those theories; and +that, in truth, there is no such thing as redemption; that it is +fabulous; and that man stands in the same relative condition with his +Maker he ever did stand, since man existed; and that it is his greatest +consolation to think so. + +Let him believe this, and he will live more consistently and morally, +than by any other system. It is by his being taught to contemplate +himself as an out-law, as an out-cast, as a beggar, as a mumper, as one +thrown as it were on a dunghill, at an immense distance from his +Creator, and who must make his approaches by creeping, and cringing to +intermediate beings, that he conceives either a contemptuous disregard +for everything under the name of religion, or becomes indifferent, or +turns what he calls devout. In the latter case, he consumes his life in +grief, or the affectation of it. His prayers are reproaches. His +humility is ingratitude. He calls himself a worm, and the fertile earth +a dunghill; and all the blessings of life by the thankless name of +vanities. He despises the choicest gift of God to man, the GIFT OF +REASON; and having endeavoured to force upon himself the belief of a +system against which reason revolts, he ungratefully calls it human +reason, as if man could give reason to himself. + +Yet, with all this strange appearance of humility, and this contempt +for human reason, he ventures into the boldest presumptions. He finds +fault with everything. His selfishness is never satisfied; his +ingratitude is never at an end. He takes on himself to direct the +Almighty what to do, even in the govemment of the universe. He prays +dictatorially. When it is sunshine, he prays for rain, and when it is +rain, he prays for sunshine. He follows the same idea in everything +that he prays for; for what is the amount of all his prayers, but an +attempt to make the Almighty change his mind, and act otherwise than he +does? It is as if he were to say—thou knowest not so well as I. + + + + +CHAPTER IX. +IN WHAT THE TRUE REVELATION CONSISTS. + + +But some perhaps will say—Are we to have no word of God—no revelation? +I answer yes. There is a Word of God; there is a revelation. + +THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, +which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh +universally to man. + +Human language is local and changeable, and is therefore incapable of +being used as the means of unchangeable and universal information. The +idea that God sent Jesus Christ to publish, as they say, the glad +tidings to all nations, from one end of the earth unto the other, is +consistent only with the ignorance of those who know nothing of the +extent of the world, and who believed, as those world-saviours +believed, and continued to believe for several centuries, (and that in +contradiction to the discoveries of philosophers and the experience of +navigators,) that the earth was flat like a trencher; and that a man +might walk to the end of it. + +But how was Jesus Christ to make anything known to all nations? He +could speak but one language, which was Hebrew; and there are in the +world several hundred languages. Scarcely any two nations speak the +same language, or understand each other; and as to translations, every +man who knows anything of languages, knows that it is impossible to +translate from one language into another, not only without losing a +great part of the original, but frequently of mistaking the sense; and +besides all this, the art of printing was wholly unknown at the time +Christ lived. + +It is always necessary that the means that are to accomplish any end be +equal to the accomplishment of that end, or the end cannot be +accomplished. It is in this that the difference between finite and +infinite power and wisdom discovers itself. Man frequently fails in +accomplishing his end, from a natural inability of the power to the +purpose; and frequently from the want of wisdom to apply power +properly. But it is impossible for infinite power and wisdom to fail as +man faileth. The means it useth are always equal to the end: but human +language, more especially as there is not an universal language, is +incapable of being used as an universal means of unchangeable and +uniform information; and therefore it is not the means that God useth +in manifesting himself universally to man. + +It is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a word +of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language, +independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various +as they be. It is an ever existing original, which every man can read. +It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it +cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the +will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself +from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and +to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is +necessary for man to know of God. + +Do we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the immensity of the +creation. Do we want to contemplate his wisdom? We see it in the +unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible Whole is governed. Do +we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in the abundance with +which he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy? We see +it in his not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful. In +fine, do we want to know what God is? Search not the book called the +scripture, which any human hand might make, but the scripture called +the Creation. + + + + +CHAPTER X. +CONCERNING GOD, AND THE LIGHTS CAST ON HIS EXISTENCE AND ATTRIBUTES BY +THE BIBLE. + + +The only idea man can affix to the name of God, is that of a first +cause, the cause of all things. And, incomprehensibly difficult as it +is for a man to conceive what a first cause is, he arrives at the +belief of it, from the tenfold greater difficulty of disbelieving it. +It is difficult beyond description to conceive that space can have no +end; but it is more difficult to conceive an end. It is difficult +beyond the power of man to conceive an eternal duration of what we call +time; but it is more impossible to conceive a time when there shall be +no time. + +In like manner of reasoning, everything we behold carries in itself the +internal evidence that it did not make itself. Every man is an evidence +to himself, that he did not make himself; neither could his father make +himself, nor his grandfather, nor any of his race; neither could any +tree, plant, or animal make itself; and it is the conviction arising +from this evidence, that carries us on, as it were, by necessity, to +the belief of a first cause eternally existing, of a nature totally +different to any material existence we know of, and by the power of +which all things exist; and this first cause, man calls God. + +It is only by the exercise of reason, that man can discover God. Take +away that reason, and he would be incapable of understanding anything; +and in this case it would be just as consistent to read even the book +called the Bible to a horse as to a man. How then is it that those +people pretend to reject reason? + +Almost the only parts in the book called the Bible, that convey to us +any idea of God, are some chapters in Job, and the 19th Psalm; I +recollect no other. Those parts are true deistical compositions; for +they treat of the Deity through his works. They take the book of +Creation as the word of God; they refer to no other book; and all the +inferences they make are drawn from that volume. + +I insert in this place the 19th Psalm, as paraphrased into English +verse by Addison. I recollect not the prose, and where I write this I +have not the opportunity of seeing it: + + The spacious firmament on high, + With all the blue etherial sky, + And spangled heavens, a shining frame, + Their great original proclaim. + The unwearied sun, from day to day, + Does his Creator’s power display, + And publishes to every land + The work of an Almighty hand. + Soon as the evening shades prevail, + The moon takes up the wondrous tale, + And nightly to the list’ning earth + Repeats the story of her birth; + Whilst all the stars that round her burn, + And all the planets, in their turn, + Confirm the tidings as they roll, + And spread the truth from pole to pole. + What though in solemn silence all + Move round this dark terrestrial ball + What though no real voice, nor sound, + Amidst their radiant orbs be found, + In reason’s ear they all rejoice, + And utter forth a glorious voice, + Forever singing as they shine, + THE HAND THAT MADE US IS DIVINE. + +What more does man want to know, than that the hand or power that made +these things is divine, is omnipotent? Let him believe this, with the +force it is impossible to repel if he permits his reason to act, and +his rule of moral life will follow of course. + +The allusions in Job have all of them the same tendency with this +Psalm; that of deducing or proving a truth that would be otherwise +unknown, from truths already known. + +I recollect not enough of the passages in Job to insert them correctly; +but there is one that occurs to me that is applicable to the subject I +am speaking upon. “Canst thou by searching find out God; canst thou +find out the Almighty to perfection?” + +I know not how the printers have pointed this passage, for I keep no +Bible; but it contains two distinct questions that admit of distinct +answers. + +First, Canst thou by searching find out God? Yes. Because, in the first +place, I know I did not make myself, and yet I have existence; and by +searching into the nature of other things, I find that no other thing +could make itself; and yet millions of other things exist; therefore it +is, that I know, by positive conclusion resulting from this search, +that there is a power superior to all those things, and that power is +God. + +Secondly, Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection? No. Not only +because the power and wisdom He has manifested in the structure of the +Creation that I behold is to me incomprehensible; but because even this +manifestation, great as it is is probably but a small display of that +immensity of power and wisdom, by which millions of other worlds, to me +invisible by their distance, were created and continue to exist. + +It is evident that both of these questions were put to the reason of +the person to whom they are supposed to have been addressed; and it is +only by admitting the first question to be answered affirmatively, that +the second could follow. It would have been unnecessary, and even +absurd, to have put a second question, more difficult than the first, +if the first question had been answered negatively. The two questions +have different objects; the first refers to the existence of God, the +second to his attributes. Reason can discover the one, but it falls +infinitely short in discovering the whole of the other. + +I recollect not a single passage in all the writings ascribed to the +men called apostles, that conveys any idea of what God is. Those +writings are chiefly controversial; and the gloominess of the subject +they dwell upon, that of a man dying in agony on a cross, is better +suited to the gloomy genius of a monk in a cell, by whom it is not +impossible they were written, than to any man breathing the open air of +the Creation. The only passage that occurs to me, that has any +reference to the works of God, by which only his power and wisdom can +be known, is related to have been spoken by Jesus Christ, as a remedy +against distrustful care. “Behold the lilies of the field, they toil +not, neither do they spin.” This, however, is far inferior to the +allusions in Job and in the 19th Psalm; but it is similar in idea, and +the modesty of the imagery is correspondent to the modesty of the man. + + + + +CHAPTER XI. +OF THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHRISTIANS; AND THE TRUE THEOLOGY. + + +As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of +atheism; a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in +a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of man-ism +with but little deism, and is as near to atheism as twilight is to +darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which +it calls a redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the +earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious or an +irreligious eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into +shade. + +The effect of this obscurity has been that of turning everything upside +down, and representing it in reverse; and among the revolutions it has +thus magically produced, it has made a revolution in Theology. + +That which is now called natural philosophy, embracing the whole circle +of science, of which astronomy occupies the chief place, is the study +of the works of God, and of the power and wisdom of God in his works, +and is the true theology. + +As to the theology that is now studied in its place, it is the study of +human opinions and of human fancies concerning God. It is not the study +of God himself in the works that he has made, but in the works or +writings that man has made; and it is not among the least of the +mischiefs that the Christian system has done to the world, that it has +abandoned the original and beautiful system of theology, like a +beautiful innocent, to distress and reproach, to make room for the hag +of superstition. + +The Book of Job and the 19th Psalm, which even the church admits to be +more ancient than the chronological order in which they stand in the +book called the Bible, are theological orations conformable to the +original system of theology. The internal evidence of those orations +proves to a demonstration that the study and contemplation of the works +of creation, and of the power and wisdom of God revealed and manifested +in those works, made a great part of the religious devotion of the +times in which they were written; and it was this devotional study and +contemplation that led to the discovery of the principles upon which +what are now called Sciences are established; and it is to the +discovery of these principles that almost all the Arts that contribute +to the convenience of human life owe their existence. Every principal +art has some science for its parent, though the person who mechanically +performs the work does not always, and but very seldom, perceive the +connection. + +It is a fraud of the Christian system to call the sciences ‘human +inventions;’ it is only the application of them that is human. Every +science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and +unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. +Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them. + +For example: Every person who looks at an almanack sees an account when +an eclipse will take place, and he sees also that it never fails to +take place according to the account there given. This shows that man is +acquainted with the laws by which the heavenly bodies move. But it +would be something worse than ignorance, were any church on earth to +say that those laws are an human invention. + +It would also be ignorance, or something worse, to say that the +scientific principles, by the aid of which man is enabled to calculate +and foreknow when an eclipse will take place, are an human invention. +Man cannot invent any thing that is eternal and immutable; and the +scientific principles he employs for this purpose must, and are, of +necessity, as eternal and immutable as the laws by which the heavenly +bodies move, or they could not be used as they are to ascertain the +time when, and the manner how, an eclipse will take place. + +The scientific principles that man employs to obtain the foreknowledge +of an eclipse, or of any thing else relating to the motion of the +heavenly bodies, are contained chiefly in that part of science that is +called trigonometry, or the properties of a triangle, which, when +applied to the study of the heavenly bodies, is called astronomy; when +applied to direct the course of a ship on the ocean, it is called +navigation; when applied to the construction of figures drawn by a rule +and compass, it is called geometry; when applied to the construction of +plans of edifices, it is called architecture; when applied to the +measurement of any portion of the surface of the earth, it is called +land-surveying. In fine, it is the soul of science. It is an eternal +truth: it contains the mathematical demonstration of which man speaks, +and the extent of its uses are unknown. + +It may be said, that man can make or draw a triangle, and therefore a +triangle is an human invention. + +But the triangle, when drawn, is no other than the image of the +principle: it is a delineation to the eye, and from thence to the mind, +of a principle that would otherwise be imperceptible. The triangle does +not make the principle, any more than a candle taken into a room that +was dark, makes the chairs and tables that before were invisible. All +the properties of a triangle exist independently of the figure, and +existed before any triangle was drawn or thought of by man. Man had no +more to do in the formation of those properties or principles, than he +had to do in making the laws by which the heavenly bodies move; and +therefore the one must have the same divine origin as the other. + +In the same manner as, it may be said, that man can make a triangle, so +also, may it be said, he can make the mechanical instrument called a +lever. But the principle by which the lever acts, is a thing distinct +from the instrument, and would exist if the instrument did not; it +attaches itself to the instrument after it is made; the instrument, +therefore, can act no otherwise than it does act; neither can all the +efforts of human invention make it act otherwise. That which, in all +such cases, man calls the effect, is no other than the principle itself +rendered perceptible to the senses. + +Since, then, man cannot make principles, from whence did he gain a +knowledge of them, so as to be able to apply them, not only to things +on earth, but to ascertain the motion of bodies so immensely distant +from him as all the heavenly bodies are? From whence, I ask, could he +gain that knowledge, but from the study of the true theology? + +It is the structure of the universe that has taught this knowledge to +man. That structure is an ever-existing exhibition of every principle +upon which every part of mathematical science is founded. The offspring +of this science is mechanics; for mechanics is no other than the +principles of science applied practically. The man who proportions the +several parts of a mill uses the same scientific principles as if he +had the power of constructing an universe, but as he cannot give to +matter that invisible agency by which all the component parts of the +immense machine of the universe have influence upon each other, and act +in motional unison together, without any apparent contact, and to which +man has given the name of attraction, gravitation, and repulsion, he +supplies the place of that agency by the humble imitation of teeth and +cogs. All the parts of man’s microcosm must visibly touch. But could he +gain a knowledge of that agency, so as to be able to apply it in +practice, we might then say that another canonical book of the word of +God had been discovered. + +If man could alter the properties of the lever, so also could he alter +the properties of the triangle: for a lever (taking that sort of lever +which is called a steel-yard, for the sake of explanation) forms, when +in motion, a triangle. The line it descends from, (one point of that +line being in the fulcrum,) the line it descends to, and the chord of +the arc, which the end of the lever describes in the air, are the three +sides of a triangle. The other arm of the lever describes also a +triangle; and the corresponding sides of those two triangles, +calculated scientifically, or measured geometrically,—and also the +sines, tangents, and secants generated from the angles, and +geometrically measured,—have the same proportions to each other as the +different weights have that will balance each other on the lever, +leaving the weight of the lever out of the case. + +It may also be said, that man can make a wheel and axis; that he can +put wheels of different magnitudes together, and produce a mill. Still +the case comes back to the same point, which is, that he did not make +the principle that gives the wheels those powers. This principle is as +unalterable as in the former cases, or rather it is the same principle +under a different appearance to the eye. + +The power that two wheels of different magnitudes have upon each other +is in the same proportion as if the semi-diameter of the two wheels +were joined together and made into that kind of lever I have described, +suspended at the part where the semi-diameters join; for the two +wheels, scientifically considered, are no other than the two circles +generated by the motion of the compound lever. + +It is from the study of the true theology that all our knowledge of +science is derived; and it is from that knowledge that all the arts +have originated. + +The Almighty lecturer, by displaying the principles of science in the +structure of the universe, has invited man to study and to imitation. +It is as if he had said to the inhabitants of this globe that we call +ours, “I have made an earth for man to dwell upon, and I have rendered +the starry heavens visible, to teach him science and the arts. He can +now provide for his own comfort, AND LEARN FROM MY MUNIFICENCE TO ALL, +TO BE KIND TO EACH OTHER.” + +Of what use is it, unless it be to teach man something, that his eye is +endowed with the power of beholding, to an incomprehensible distance, +an immensity of worlds revolving in the ocean of space? Or of what use +is it that this immensity of worlds is visible to man? What has man to +do with the Pleiades, with Orion, with Sirius, with the star he calls +the north star, with the moving orbs he has named Saturn, Jupiter, +Mars, Venus, and Mercury, if no uses are to follow from their being +visible? A less power of vision would have been sufficient for man, if +the immensity he now possesses were given only to waste itself, as it +were, on an immense desert of space glittering with shows. + +It is only by contemplating what he calls the starry heavens, as the +book and school of science, that he discovers any use in their being +visible to him, or any advantage resulting from his immensity of +vision. But when he contemplates the subject in this light, he sees an +additional motive for saying, that nothing was made in vain; for in +vain would be this power of vision if it taught man nothing. + + + + +CHAPTER XII. +THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANISM ON EDUCATION; PROPOSED REFORMS + + +As the Christian system of faith has made a revolution in theology, so +also has it made a revolution in the state of learning. That which is +now called learning, was not learning originally. Learning does not +consist, as the schools now make it consist, in the knowledge of +languages, but in the knowledge of things to which language gives +names. + +The Greeks were a learned people, but learning with them did not +consist in speaking Greek, any more than in a Roman’s speaking Latin, +or a Frenchman’s speaking French, or an Englishman’s speaking English. +From what we know of the Greeks, it does not appear that they knew or +studied any language but their own, and this was one cause of their +becoming so learned; it afforded them more time to apply themselves to +better studies. The schools of the Greeks were schools of science and +philosophy, and not of languages; and it is in the knowledge of the +things that science and philosophy teach that learning consists. + +Almost all the scientific learning that now exists, came to us from the +Greeks, or the people who spoke the Greek language. It therefore became +necessary to the people of other nations, who spoke a different +language, that some among them should learn the Greek language, in +order that the learning the Greeks had might be made known in those +nations, by translating the Greek books of science and philosophy into +the mother tongue of each nation. + +The study, therefore, of the Greek language (and in the same manner for +the Latin) was no other than the drudgery business of a linguist; and +the language thus obtained, was no other than the means, or as it were +the tools, employed to obtain the learning the Greeks had. It made no +part of the learning itself; and was so distinct from it as to make it +exceedingly probable that the persons who had studied Greek +sufficiently to translate those works, such for instance as Euclid’s +Elements, did not understand any of the learning the works contained. + +As there is now nothing new to be learned from the dead languages, all +the useful books being already translated, the languages are become +useless, and the time expended in teaching and in learning them is +wasted. So far as the study of languages may contribute to the progress +and communication of knowledge (for it has nothing to do with the +creation of knowledge) it is only in the living languages that new +knowledge is to be found; and certain it is, that, in general, a youth +will learn more of a living language in one year, than of a dead +language in seven; and it is but seldom that the teacher knows much of +it himself. The difficulty of learning the dead languages does not +arise from any superior abstruseness in the languages themselves, but +in their being dead, and the pronunciation entirely lost. It would be +the same thing with any other language when it becomes dead. The best +Greek linguist that now exists does not understand Greek so well as a +Grecian plowman did, or a Grecian milkmaid; and the same for the Latin, +compared with a plowman or a milkmaid of the Romans; and with respect +to pronunciation and idiom, not so well as the cows that she milked. It +would therefore be advantageous to the state of learning to abolish the +study of the dead languages, and to make learning consist, as it +originally did, in scientific knowledge. + +The apology that is sometimes made for continuing to teach the dead +languages is, that they are taught at a time when a child is not +capable of exerting any other mental faculty than that of memory. But +this is altogether erroneous. The human mind has a natural disposition +to scientific knowledge, and to the things connected with it. The first +and favourite amusement of a child, even before it begins to play, is +that of imitating the works of man. It builds houses with cards or +sticks; it navigates the little ocean of a bowl of water with a paper +boat; or dams the stream of a gutter, and contrives something which it +calls a mill; and it interests itself in the fate of its works with a +care that resembles affection. It afterwards goes to school, where its +genius is killed by the barren study of a dead language, and the +philosopher is lost in the linguist. + +But the apology that is now made for continuing to teach the dead +languages, could not be the cause at first of cutting down learning to +the narrow and humble sphere of linguistry; the cause therefore must be +sought for elsewhere. In all researches of this kind, the best evidence +that can be produced, is the internal evidence the thing carries with +itself, and the evidence of circumstances that unites with it; both of +which, in this case, are not difficult to be discovered. + +Putting then aside, as matter of distinct consideration, the outrage +offered to the moral justice of God, by supposing him to make the +innocent suffer for the guilty, and also the loose morality and low +contrivance of supposing him to change himself into the shape of a man, +in order to make an excuse to himself for not executing his supposed +sentence upon Adam; putting, I say, those things aside as matter of +distinct consideration, it is certain that what is called the christian +system of faith, including in it the whimsical account of the +creation—the strange story of Eve, the snake, and the apple—the +amphibious idea of a man-god—the corporeal idea of the death of a +god—the mythological idea of a family of gods, and the christian system +of arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three, are all +irreconcilable, not only to the divine gift of reason, that God has +given to man, but to the knowledge that man gains of the power and +wisdom of God by the aid of the sciences, and by studying the structure +of the universe that God has made. + +The setters up, therefore, and the advocates of the Christian system of +faith, could not but foresee that the continually progressive knowledge +that man would gain by the aid of science, of the power and wisdom of +God, manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all the works +of creation, would militate against, and call into question, the truth +of their system of faith; and therefore it became necessary to their +purpose to cut learning down to a size less dangerous to their project, +and this they effected by restricting the idea of learning to the dead +study of dead languages. + +They not only rejected the study of science out of the christian +schools, but they persecuted it; and it is only within about the last +two centuries that the study has been revived. So late as 1610, +Galileo, a Florentine, discovered and introduced the use of telescopes, +and by applying them to observe the motions and appearances of the +heavenly bodies, afforded additional means for ascertaining the true +structure of the universe. Instead of being esteemed for these +discoveries, he was sentenced to renounce them, or the opinions +resulting from them, as a damnable heresy. And prior to that time +Virgilius was condemned to be burned for asserting the antipodes, or in +other words, that the earth was a globe, and habitable in every part +where there was land; yet the truth of this is now too well known even +to be told. [NOTE: I cannot discover the source of this statement +concerning the ancient author whose Irish name Feirghill was Latinized +into Virgilius. The British Museum possesses a copy of the work +(Decalogiunt) which was the pretext of the charge of heresy made by +Boniface, Archbishop of Mayence, against Virgilius, Abbot—bishop of +Salzburg, These were leaders of the rival “British” and “Roman parties, +and the British champion made a countercharge against Boniface of +irreligious practices.” Boniface had to express a “regret,” but none +the less pursued his rival. The Pope, Zachary II., decided that if his +alleged “doctrine, against God and his soul, that beneath the earth +there is another world, other men, or sun and moon,” should be +acknowledged by Virgilius, he should be excommunicated by a Council and +condemned with canonical sanctions. Whatever may have been the fate +involved by condemnation with “canonicis sanctionibus,” in the middle +of the eighth century, it did not fall on Virgilius. His accuser, +Boniface, was martyred, 755, and it is probable that Virgilius +harmonied his Antipodes with orthodoxy. The gravamen of the heresy +seems to have been the suggestion that there were men not of the +progeny of Adam. Virgilius was made Bishop of Salzburg in 768. He bore +until his death, 789, the curious title, “Geometer and Solitary,” or +“lone wayfarer” (Solivagus). A suspicion of heresy clung to his memory +until 1233, when he was raised by Gregory IX, to sainthood beside his +accuser, St. Boniface.—Editor. (Conway)] + +If the belief of errors not morally bad did no mischief, it would make +no part of the moral duty of man to oppose and remove them. There was +no moral ill in believing the earth was flat like a trencher, any more +than there was moral virtue in believing it was round like a globe; +neither was there any moral ill in believing that the Creator made no +other world than this, any more than there was moral virtue in +believing that he made millions, and that the infinity of space is +filled with worlds. But when a system of religion is made to grow out +of a supposed system of creation that is not true, and to unite itself +therewith in a manner almost inseparable therefrom, the case assumes an +entirely different ground. It is then that errors, not morally bad, +become fraught with the same mischiefs as if they were. It is then that +the truth, though otherwise indifferent itself, becomes an essential, +by becoming the criterion that either confirms by corresponding +evidence, or denies by contradictory evidence, the reality of the +religion itself. In this view of the case it is the moral duty of man +to obtain every possible evidence that the structure of the heavens, or +any other part of creation affords, with respect to systems of +religion. But this, the supporters or partizans of the christian +system, as if dreading the result, incessantly opposed, and not only +rejected the sciences, but persecuted the professors. Had Newton or +Descartes lived three or four hundred years ago, and pursued their +studies as they did, it is most probable they would not have lived to +finish them; and had Franklin drawn lightning from the clouds at the +same time, it would have been at the hazard of expiring for it in +flames. + +Later times have laid all the blame upon the Goths and Vandals, but, +however unwilling the partizans of the Christian system may be to +believe or to acknowledge it, it is nevertheless true, that the age of +ignorance commenced with the Christian system. There was more knowledge +in the world before that period, than for many centuries afterwards; +and as to religious knowledge, the Christian system, as already said, +was only another species of mythology; and the mythology to which it +succeeded, was a corruption of an ancient system of theism. [NOTE by +Paine: It is impossible for us now to know at what time the heathen +mythology began; but it is certain, from the internal evidence that it +carries, that it did not begin in the same state or condition in which +it ended. All the gods of that mythology, except Saturn, were of modern +invention. The supposed reign of Saturn was prior to that which is +called the heathen mythology, and was so far a species of theism that +it admitted the belief of only one God. Saturn is supposed to have +abdicated the govemment in favour of his three sons and one daughter, +Jupiter, Pluto, Neptune, and Juno; after this, thousands of other gods +and demigods were imaginarily created, and the calendar of gods +increased as fast as the calendar of saints and the calendar of courts +have increased since. + +All the corruptions that have taken place, in theology and in religion +have been produced by admitting of what man calls ‘revealed religion.’ +The mythologists pretended to more revealed religion than the +christians do. They had their oracles and their priests, who were +supposed to receive and deliver the word of God verbally on almost all +occasions. + +Since then all corruptions down from Moloch to modern +predestinarianism, and the human sacrifices of the heathens to the +christian sacrifice of the Creator, have been produced by admitting of +what is called revealed religion, the most effectual means to prevent +all such evils and impositions is, not to admit of any other revelation +than that which is manifested in the book of Creation., and to +contemplate the Creation as the only true and real word of God that +ever did or ever will exist; and every thing else called the word of +God is fable and imposition.—Author.] + +It is owing to this long interregnum of science, and to no other cause, +that we have now to look back through a vast chasm of many hundred +years to the respectable characters we call the Ancients. Had the +progression of knowledge gone on proportionably with the stock that +before existed, that chasm would have been filled up with characters +rising superior in knowledge to each other; and those Ancients we now +so much admire would have appeared respectably in the background of the +scene. But the christian system laid all waste; and if we take our +stand about the beginning of the sixteenth century, we look back +through that long chasm, to the times of the Ancients, as over a vast +sandy desert, in which not a shrub appears to intercept the vision to +the fertile hills beyond. + +It is an inconsistency scarcely possible to be credited, that any thing +should exist, under the name of a religion, that held it to be +irreligious to study and contemplate the structure of the universe that +God had made. But the fact is too well established to be denied. The +event that served more than any other to break the first link in this +long chain of despotic ignorance, is that known by the name of the +Reformation by Luther. From that time, though it does not appear to +have made any part of the intention of Luther, or of those who are +called Reformers, the Sciences began to revive, and Liberality, their +natural associate, began to appear. This was the only public good the +Reformation did; for, with respect to religious good, it might as well +not have taken place. The mythology still continued the same; and a +multiplicity of National Popes grew out of the downfall of the Pope of +Christendom. + + + + +CHAPTER XIII. +COMPARISON OF CHRISTIANISM WITH THE RELIGIOUS IDEAS INSPIRED BY NATURE + + +Having thus shewn, from the internal evidence of things, the cause that +produced a change in the state of learning, and the motive for +substituting the study of the dead languages, in the place of the +Sciences, I proceed, in addition to the several observations already +made in the former part of this work, to compare, or rather to +confront, the evidence that the structure of the universe affords, with +the christian system of religion. But as I cannot begin this part +better than by referring to the ideas that occurred to me at an early +part of life, and which I doubt not have occurred in some degree to +almost every other person at one time or other, I shall state what +those ideas were, and add thereto such other matter as shall arise out +of the subject, giving to the whole, by way of preface, a short +introduction. + +My father being of the quaker profession, it was my good fortune to +have an exceedingly good moral education, and a tolerable stock of +useful learning. Though I went to the grammar school, I did not learn +Latin, not only because I had no inclination to learn languages, but +because of the objection the quakers have against the books in which +the language is taught. But this did not prevent me from being +acquainted with the subjects of all the Latin books used in the school. + +The natural bent of my mind was to science. I had some turn, and I +believe some talent for poetry; but this I rather repressed than +encouraged, as leading too much into the field of imagination. As soon +as I was able, I purchased a pair of globes, and attended the +philosophical lectures of Martin and Ferguson, and became afterwards +acquainted with Dr. Bevis, of the society called the Royal Society, +then living in the Temple, and an excellent astronomer. + +I had no disposition for what was called politics. It presented to my +mind no other idea than is contained in the word jockeyship. When, +therefore, I turned my thoughts towards matters of government, I had to +form a system for myself, that accorded with the moral and philosophic +principles in which I had been educated. I saw, or at least I thought I +saw, a vast scene opening itself to the world in the affairs of +America; and it appeared to me, that unless the Americans changed the +plan they were then pursuing, with respect to the government of +England, and declared themselves independent, they would not only +involve themselves in a multiplicity of new difficulties, but shut out +the prospect that was then offering itself to mankind through their +means. It was from these motives that I published the work known by the +name of Common Sense, which is the first work I ever did publish, and +so far as I can judge of myself, I believe I should never have been +known in the world as an author on any subject whatever, had it not +been for the affairs of America. I wrote Common Sense the latter end of +the year 1775, and published it the first of January, 1776. +Independence was declared the fourth of July following. [NOTE: The +pamphlet Common Sense was first advertised, as “just published,” on +January 10, 1776. His plea for the Officers of Excise, written before +leaving England, was printed, but not published until 1793. Despite his +reiterated assertion that Common Sense was the first work he ever +published the notion that he was “junius” still finds some believers. +An indirect comment on our Paine-Junians may be found in Part 2 of this +work where Paine says a man capable of writing Homer “would not have +thrown away his own fame by giving it to another.” It is probable that +Paine ascribed the Letters of Junius to Thomas Hollis. His friend F. +Lanthenas, in his translation of the Age of Reason (1794) advertises +his translation of the Letters of Junius from the English “(Thomas +Hollis).” This he could hardly have done without consultation with +Paine. Unfortunately this translation of Junius cannot be found either +in the Bibliotheque Nationale or the British Museum, and it cannot be +said whether it contains any attempt at an identification of +Junius—Editor.] + +Any person, who has made observations on the state and progress of the +human mind, by observing his own, can not but have observed, that there +are two distinct classes of what are called Thoughts; those that we +produce in ourselves by reflection and the act of thinking, and those +that bolt into the mind of their own accord. I have always made it a +rule to treat those voluntary visitors with civility, taking care to +examine, as well as I was able, if they were worth entertaining; and it +is from them I have acquired almost all the knowledge that I have. As +to the learning that any person gains from school education, it serves +only, like a small capital, to put him in the way of beginning learning +for himself afterwards. Every person of learning is finally his own +teacher; the reason of which is, that principles, being of a distinct +quality to circumstances, cannot be impressed upon the memory; their +place of mental residence is the understanding, and they are never so +lasting as when they begin by conception. Thus much for the +introductory part. + +From the time I was capable of conceiving an idea, and acting upon it +by reflection, I either doubted the truth of the christian system, or +thought it to be a strange affair; I scarcely knew which it was: but I +well remember, when about seven or eight years of age, hearing a sermon +read by a relation of mine, who was a great devotee of the church, upon +the subject of what is called Redemption by the death of the Son of +God. After the sermon was ended, I went into the garden, and as I was +going down the garden steps (for I perfectly recollect the spot) I +revolted at the recollection of what I had heard, and thought to myself +that it was making God Almighty act like a passionate man, that killed +his son, when he could not revenge himself any other way; and as I was +sure a man would be hanged that did such a thing, I could not see for +what purpose they preached such sermons. This was not one of those kind +of thoughts that had any thing in it of childish levity; it was to me a +serious reflection, arising from the idea I had that God was too good +to do such an action, and also too almighty to be under any necessity +of doing it. I believe in the same manner to this moment; and I +moreover believe, that any system of religion that has anything in it +that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system. + +It seems as if parents of the christian profession were ashamed to tell +their children any thing about the principles of their religion. They +sometimes instruct them in morals, and talk to them of the goodness of +what they call Providence; for the Christian mythology has five +deities: there is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, the +God Providence, and the Goddess Nature. But the christian story of God +the Father putting his son to death, or employing people to do it, (for +that is the plain language of the story,) cannot be told by a parent to +a child; and to tell him that it was done to make mankind happier and +better, is making the story still worse; as if mankind could be +improved by the example of murder; and to tell him that all this is a +mystery, is only making an excuse for the incredibility of it. + +How different is this to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The +true deist has but one Deity; and his religion consists in +contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his +works, and in endeavouring to imitate him in every thing moral, +scientifical, and mechanical. + +The religion that approaches the nearest of all others to true Deism, +in the moral and benign part thereof, is that professed by the quakers: +but they have contracted themselves too much by leaving the works of +God out of their system. Though I reverence their philanthropy, I can +not help smiling at the conceit, that if the taste of a quaker could +have been consulted at the creation, what a silent and drab-colored +creation it would have been! Not a flower would have blossomed its +gaieties, nor a bird been permitted to sing. + +Quitting these reflections, I proceed to other matters. After I had +made myself master of the use of the globes, and of the orrery, [NOTE +by Paine: As this book may fall into the bands of persons who do not +know what an orrery is, it is for their information I add this note, as +the name gives no idea of the uses of the thing. The orrery has its +name from the person who invented it. It is a machinery of clock-work, +representing the universe in miniature: and in which the revolution of +the earth round itself and round the sun, the revolution of the moon +round the earth, the revolution of the planets round the sun, their +relative distances from the sun, as the center of the whole system, +their relative distances from each other, and their different +magnitudes, are represented as they really exist in what we call the +heavens.—Author.] and conceived an idea of the infinity of space, and +of the eternal divisibility of matter, and obtained, at least, a +general knowledge of what was called natural philosophy, I began to +compare, or, as I have before said, to confront, the internal evidence +those things afford with the christian system of faith. + +Though it is not a direct article of the christian system that this +world that we inhabit is the whole of the habitable creation, yet it is +so worked up therewith, from what is called the Mosaic account of the +creation, the story of Eve and the apple, and the counterpart of that +story, the death of the Son of God, that to believe otherwise, that is, +to believe that God created a plurality of worlds, at least as numerous +as what we call stars, renders the christian system of faith at once +little and ridiculous; and scatters it in the mind like feathers in the +air. The two beliefs can not be held together in the same mind; and he +who thinks that he believes both, has thought but little of either. + +Though the belief of a plurality of worlds was familiar to the +ancients, it is only within the last three centuries that the extent +and dimensions of this globe that we inhabit have been ascertained. +Several vessels, following the tract of the ocean, have sailed entirely +round the world, as a man may march in a circle, and come round by the +contrary side of the circle to the spot he set out from. The circular +dimensions of our world, in the widest part, as a man would measure the +widest round of an apple, or a ball, is only twenty-five thousand and +twenty English miles, reckoning sixty-nine miles and an half to an +equatorial degree, and may be sailed round in the space of about three +years. [NOTE by Paine: Allowing a ship to sail, on an average, three +miles in an hour, she would sail entirely round the world in less than +one year, if she could sail in a direct circle, but she is obliged to +follow the course of the ocean.—Author.] + +A world of this extent may, at first thought, appear to us to be great; +but if we compare it with the immensity of space in which it is +suspended, like a bubble or a balloon in the air, it is infinitely less +in proportion than the smallest grain of sand is to the size of the +world, or the finest particle of dew to the whole ocean, and is +therefore but small; and, as will be hereafter shown, is only one of a +system of worlds, of which the universal creation is composed. + +It is not difficult to gain some faint idea of the immensity of space +in which this and all the other worlds are suspended, if we follow a +progression of ideas. When we think of the size or dimensions of, a +room, our ideas limit themselves to the walls, and there they stop. But +when our eye, or our imagination darts into space, that is, when it +looks upward into what we call the open air, we cannot conceive any +walls or boundaries it can have; and if for the sake of resting our +ideas we suppose a boundary, the question immediately renews itself, +and asks, what is beyond that boundary? and in the same manner, what +beyond the next boundary? and so on till the fatigued imagination +returns and says, there is no end. Certainly, then, the Creator was not +pent for room when he made this world no larger than it is; and we have +to seek the reason in something else. + +If we take a survey of our own world, or rather of this, of which the +Creator has given us the use as our portion in the immense system of +creation, we find every part of it, the earth, the waters, and the air +that surround it, filled, and as it were crowded with life, down from +the largest animals that we know of to the smallest insects the naked +eye can behold, and from thence to others still smaller, and totally +invisible without the assistance of the microscope. Every tree, every +plant, every leaf, serves not only as an habitation, but as a world to +some numerous race, till animal existence becomes so exceedingly +refined, that the effluvia of a blade of grass would be food for +thousands. + +Since then no part of our earth is left unoccupied, why is it to be +supposed that the immensity of space is a naked void, lying in eternal +waste? There is room for millions of worlds as large or larger than +ours, and each of them millions of miles apart from each other. + +Having now arrived at this point, if we carry our ideas only one +thought further, we shall see, perhaps, the true reason, at least a +very good reason for our happiness, why the Creator, instead of making +one immense world, extending over an immense quantity of space, has +preferred dividing that quantity of matter into several distinct and +separate worlds, which we call planets, of which our earth is one. But +before I explain my ideas upon this subject, it is necessary (not for +the sake of those that already know, but for those who do not) to show +what the system of the universe is. + + + + +CHAPTER XIV. +SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE. + + +That part of the universe that is called the solar system (meaning the +system of worlds to which our earth belongs, and of which Sol, or in +English language, the Sun, is the center) consists, besides the Sun, of +six distinct orbs, or planets, or worlds, besides the secondary bodies, +called the satellites, or moons, of which our earth has one that +attends her in her annual revolution round the Sun, in like manner as +the other satellites or moons, attend the planets or worlds to which +they severally belong, as may be seen by the assistance of the +telescope. + +The Sun is the center round which those six worlds or planets revolve +at different distances therefrom, and in circles concentric to each +other. Each world keeps constantly in nearly the same tract round the +Sun, and continues at the same time turning round itself, in nearly an +upright position, as a top turns round itself when it is spinning on +the ground, and leans a little sideways. + +It is this leaning of the earth (23 1/2 degrees) that occasions summer +and winter, and the different length of days and nights. If the earth +turned round itself in a position perpendicular to the plane or level +of the circle it moves in round the Sun, as a top turns round when it +stands erect on the ground, the days and nights would be always of the +same length, twelve hours day and twelve hours night, and the season +would be uniformly the same throughout the year. + +Every time that a planet (our earth for example) turns round itself, it +makes what we call day and night; and every time it goes entirely round +the Sun, it makes what we call a year, consequently our world turns +three hundred and sixty-five times round itself, in going once round +the Sun. + +The names that the ancients gave to those six worlds, and which are +still called by the same names, are Mercury, Venus, this world that we +call ours, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. They appear larger to the eye +than the stars, being many million miles nearer to our earth than any +of the stars are. The planet Venus is that which is called the evening +star, and sometimes the morning star, as she happens to set after, or +rise before the Sun, which in either case is never more than three +hours. + +The Sun as before said being the center, the planet or world nearest +the Sun is Mercury; his distance from the Sun is thirty-four million +miles, and he moves round in a circle always at that distance from the +Sun, as a top may be supposed to spin round in the tract in which a +horse goes in a mill. The second world is Venus; she is fifty-seven +million miles distant from the Sun, and consequently moves round in a +circle much greater than that of Mercury. The third world is this that +we inhabit, and which is eighty-eight million miles distant from the +Sun, and consequently moves round in a circle greater than that of +Venus. The fourth world is Mars; he is distant from the sun one hundred +and thirty-four million miles, and consequently moves round in a circle +greater than that of our earth. The fifth is Jupiter; he is distant +from the Sun five hundred and fifty-seven million miles, and +consequently moves round in a circle greater than that of Mars. The +sixth world is Saturn; he is distant from the Sun seven hundred and +sixty-three million miles, and consequently moves round in a circle +that surrounds the circles or orbits of all the other worlds or +planets. + +The space, therefore, in the air, or in the immensity of space, that +our solar system takes up for the several worlds to perform their +revolutions in round the Sun, is of the extent in a strait line of the +whole diameter of the orbit or circle in which Saturn moves round the +Sun, which being double his distance from the Sun, is fifteen hundred +and twenty-six million miles; and its circular extent is nearly five +thousand million; and its globical content is almost three thousand +five hundred million times three thousand five hundred million square +miles. [NOTE by Paine: If it should be asked, how can man know these +things? I have one plain answer to give, which is, that man knows how +to calculate an eclipse, and also how to calculate to a minute of time +when the planet Venus, in making her revolutions round the Sun, will +come in a strait line between our earth and the Sun, and will appear to +us about the size of a large pea passing across the face of the Sun. +This happens but twice in about a hundred years, at the distance of +about eight years from each other, and has happened twice in our time, +both of which were foreknown by calculation. It can also be known when +they will happen again for a thousand years to come, or to any other +portion of time. As therefore, man could not be able to do these things +if he did not understand the solar system, and the manner in which the +revolutions of the several planets or worlds are performed, the fact of +calculating an eclipse, or a transit of Venus, is a proof in point that +the knowledge exists; and as to a few thousand, or even a few million +miles, more or less, it makes scarcely any sensible difference in such +immense distances.—Author.] + +But this, immense as it is, is only one system of worlds. Beyond this, +at a vast distance into space, far beyond all power of calculation, are +the stars called the fixed stars. They are called fixed, because they +have no revolutionary motion, as the six worlds or planets have that I +have been describing. Those fixed stars continue always at the same +distance from each other, and always in the same place, as the Sun does +in the center of our system. The probability, therefore, is that each +of those fixed stars is also a Sun, round which another system of +worlds or planets, though too remote for us to discover, performs its +revolutions, as our system of worlds does round our central Sun. By +this easy progression of ideas, the immensity of space will appear to +us to be filled with systems of worlds; and that no part of space lies +at waste, any more than any part of our globe of earth and water is +left unoccupied. + +Having thus endeavoured to convey, in a familiar and easy manner, some +idea of the structure of the universe, I return to explain what I +before alluded to, namely, the great benefits arising to man in +consequence of the Creator having made a Plurality of worlds, such as +our system is, consisting of a central Sun and six worlds, besides +satellites, in preference to that of creating one world only of a vast +extent. + + + + +CHAPTER XV. +ADVANTAGES OF THE EXISTENCE OF MANY WORLDS IN EACH SOLAR SYSTEM + + +It is an idea I have never lost sight of, that all our knowledge of +science is derived from the revolutions (exhibited to our eye and from +thence to our understanding) which those several planets or worlds of +which our system is composed make in their circuit round the Sun. + +Had then the quantity of matter which these six worlds contain been +blended into one solitary globe, the consequence to us would have been, +that either no revolutionary motion would have existed, or not a +sufficiency of it to give us the ideas and the knowledge of science we +now have; and it is from the sciences that all the mechanical arts that +contribute so much to our earthly felicity and comfort are derived. + +As therefore the Creator made nothing in vain, so also must it be +believed that he organized the structure of the universe in the most +advantageous manner for the benefit of man; and as we see, and from +experience feel, the benefits we derive from the structure of the +universe, formed as it is, which benefits we should not have had the +opportunity of enjoying if the structure, so far as relates to our +system, had been a solitary globe, we can discover at least one reason +why a plurality of worlds has been made, and that reason calls forth +the devotional gratitude of man, as well as his admiration. + +But it is not to us, the inhabitants of this globe, only, that the +benefits arising from a plurality of worlds are limited. The +inhabitants of each of the worlds of which our system is composed, +enjoy the same opportunities of knowledge as we do. They behold the +revolutionary motions of our earth, as we behold theirs. All the +planets revolve in sight of each other; and, therefore, the same +universal school of science presents itself to all. + +Neither does the knowledge stop here. The system of worlds next to us +exhibits, in its revolutions, the same principles and school of +science, to the inhabitants of their system, as our system does to us, +and in like manner throughout the immensity of space. + +Our ideas, not only of the almightiness of the Creator, but of his +wisdom and his beneficence, become enlarged in proportion as we +contemplate the extent and the structure of the universe. The solitary +idea of a solitary world, rolling or at rest in the immense ocean of +space, gives place to the cheerful idea of a society of worlds, so +happily contrived as to administer, even by their motion, instruction +to man. We see our own earth filled with abundance; but we forget to +consider how much of that abundance is owing to the scientific +knowledge the vast machinery of the universe has unfolded. + + + + +CHAPTER XVI. +APPLICATION OF THE PRECEDING TO THE SYSTEM OF THE CHRISTIANS + + +But, in the midst of those reflections, what are we to think of the +christian system of faith that forms itself upon the idea of only one +world, and that of no greater extent, as is before shown, than +twenty-five thousand miles. An extent which a man, walking at the rate +of three miles an hour for twelve hours in the day, could he keep on in +a circular direction, would walk entirely round in less than two years. +Alas! what is this to the mighty ocean of space, and the almighty power +of the Creator! + +From whence then could arise the solitary and strange conceit that the +Almighty, who had millions of worlds equally dependent on his +protection, should quit the care of all the rest, and come to die in +our world, because, they say, one man and one woman had eaten an apple! +And, on the other hand, are we to suppose that every world in the +boundless creation had an Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a redeemer? In +this case, the person who is irreverently called the Son of God, and +sometimes God himself, would have nothing else to do than to travel +from world to world, in an endless succession of death, with scarcely a +momentary interval of life. + +It has been by rejecting the evidence, that the word, or works of God +in the creation, affords to our senses, and the action of our reason +upon that evidence, that so many wild and whimsical systems of faith, +and of religion, have been fabricated and set up. There may be many +systems of religion that so far from being morally bad are in many +respects morally good: but there can be but ONE that is true; and that +one necessarily must, as it ever will, be in all things consistent with +the ever existing word of God that we behold in his works. But such is +the strange construction of the christian system of faith, that every +evidence the heavens affords to man, either directly contradicts it or +renders it absurd. + +It is possible to believe, and I always feel pleasure in encouraging +myself to believe it, that there have been men in the world who +persuaded themselves that what is called a pious fraud, might, at least +under particular circumstances, be productive of some good. But the +fraud being once established, could not afterwards be explained; for it +is with a pious fraud as with a bad action, it begets a calamitous +necessity of going on. + +The persons who first preached the christian system of faith, and in +some measure combined with it the morality preached by Jesus Christ, +might persuade themselves that it was better than the heathen mythology +that then prevailed. From the first preachers the fraud went on to the +second, and to the third, till the idea of its being a pious fraud +became lost in the belief of its being true; and that belief became +again encouraged by the interest of those who made a livelihood by +preaching it. + +But though such a belief might, by such means, be rendered almost +general among the laity, it is next to impossible to account for the +continual persecution carried on by the church, for several hundred +years, against the sciences, and against the professors of science, if +the church had not some record or tradition that it was originally no +other than a pious fraud, or did not foresee that it could not be +maintained against the evidence that the structure of the universe +afforded. + + + + +CHAPTER XVII. +OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED IN ALL TIME, AND ALMOST UNIVERSALLY, TO DECEIVE +THE PEOPLES + + +Having thus shown the irreconcileable inconsistencies between the real +word of God existing in the universe, and that which is called the word +of God, as shown to us in a printed book that any man might make, I +proceed to speak of the three principal means that have been employed +in all ages, and perhaps in all countries, to impose upon mankind. + +Those three means are Mystery, Miracle, and Prophecy, The first two are +incompatible with true religion, and the third ought always to be +suspected. + +With respect to Mystery, everything we behold is, in one sense, a +mystery to us. Our own existence is a mystery: the whole vegetable +world is a mystery. We cannot account how it is that an acorn, when put +into the ground, is made to develop itself and become an oak. We know +not how it is that the seed we sow unfolds and multiplies itself, and +returns to us such an abundant interest for so small a capital. + +The fact however, as distinct from the operating cause, is not a +mystery, because we see it; and we know also the means we are to use, +which is no other than putting the seed in the ground. We know, +therefore, as much as is necessary for us to know; and that part of the +operation that we do not know, and which if we did, we could not +perform, the Creator takes upon himself and performs it for us. We are, +therefore, better off than if we had been let into the secret, and left +to do it for ourselves. + +But though every created thing is, in this sense, a mystery, the word +mystery cannot be applied to moral truth, any more than obscurity can +be applied to light. The God in whom we believe is a God of moral +truth, and not a God of mystery or obscurity. Mystery is the antagonist +of truth. It is a fog of human invention that obscures truth, and +represents it in distortion. Truth never envelops itself in mystery; +and the mystery in which it is at any time enveloped, is the work of +its antagonist, and never of itself. + +Religion, therefore, being the belief of a God, and the practice of +moral truth, cannot have connection with mystery. The belief of a God, +so far from having any thing of mystery in it, is of all beliefs the +most easy, because it arises to us, as is before observed, out of +necessity. And the practice of moral truth, or, in other words, a +practical imitation of the moral goodness of God, is no other than our +acting towards each other as he acts benignly towards all. We cannot +serve God in the manner we serve those who cannot do without such +service; and, therefore, the only idea we can have of serving God, is +that of contributing to the happiness of the living creation that God +has made. This cannot be done by retiring ourselves from the society of +the world, and spending a recluse life in selfish devotion. + +The very nature and design of religion, if I may so express it, prove +even to demonstration that it must be free from every thing of mystery, +and unincumbered with every thing that is mysterious. Religion, +considered as a duty, is incumbent upon every living soul alike, and, +therefore, must be on a level to the understanding and comprehension of +all. Man does not learn religion as he learns the secrets and mysteries +of a trade. He learns the theory of religion by reflection. It arises +out of the action of his own mind upon the things which he sees, or +upon what he may happen to hear or to read, and the practice joins +itself thereto. + +When men, whether from policy or pious fraud, set up systems of +religion incompatible with the word or works of God in the creation, +and not only above but repugnant to human comprehension, they were +under the necessity of inventing or adopting a word that should serve +as a bar to all questions, inquiries and speculations. The word mystery +answered this purpose, and thus it has happened that religion, which is +in itself without mystery, has been corrupted into a fog of mysteries. + +As mystery answered all general purposes, miracle followed as an +occasional auxiliary. The former served to bewilder the mind, the +latter to puzzle the senses. The one was the lingo, the other the +legerdemain. + +But before going further into this subject, it will be proper to +inquire what is to be understood by a miracle. + +In the same sense that every thing may be said to be a mystery, so also +may it be said that every thing is a miracle, and that no one thing is +a greater miracle than another. The elephant, though larger, is not a +greater miracle than a mite: nor a mountain a greater miracle than an +atom. To an almighty power it is no more difficult to make the one than +the other, and no more difficult to make a million of worlds than to +make one. Every thing, therefore, is a miracle, in one sense; whilst, +in the other sense, there is no such thing as a miracle. It is a +miracle when compared to our power, and to our comprehension. It is not +a miracle compared to the power that performs it. But as nothing in +this description conveys the idea that is affixed to the word miracle, +it is necessary to carry the inquiry further. + +Mankind have conceived to themselves certain laws, by which what they +call nature is supposed to act; and that a miracle is something +contrary to the operation and effect of those laws. But unless we know +the whole extent of those laws, and of what are commonly called the +powers of nature, we are not able to judge whether any thing that may +appear to us wonderful or miraculous, be within, or be beyond, or be +contrary to, her natural power of acting. + +The ascension of a man several miles high into the air, would have +everything in it that constitutes the idea of a miracle, if it were not +known that a species of air can be generated several times lighter than +the common atmospheric air, and yet possess elasticity enough to +prevent the balloon, in which that light air is inclosed, from being +compressed into as many times less bulk, by the common air that +surrounds it. In like manner, extracting flashes or sparks of fire from +the human body, as visibly as from a steel struck with a flint, and +causing iron or steel to move without any visible agent, would also +give the idea of a miracle, if we were not acquainted with electricity +and magnetism; so also would many other experiments in natural +philosophy, to those who are not acquainted with the subject. The +restoring persons to life who are to appearance dead as is practised +upon drowned persons, would also be a miracle, if it were not known +that animation is capable of being suspended without being extinct. + +Besides these, there are performances by slight of hand, and by persons +acting in concert, that have a miraculous appearance, which, when +known, are thought nothing of. And, besides these, there are mechanical +and optical deceptions. There is now an exhibition in Paris of ghosts +or spectres, which, though it is not imposed upon the spectators as a +fact, has an astonishing appearance. As, therefore, we know not the +extent to which either nature or art can go, there is no criterion to +determine what a miracle is; and mankind, in giving credit to +appearances, under the idea of their being miracles, are subject to be +continually imposed upon. + +Since then appearances are so capable of deceiving, and things not real +have a strong resemblance to things that are, nothing can be more +inconsistent than to suppose that the Almighty would make use of means, +such as are called miracles, that would subject the person who +performed them to the suspicion of being an impostor, and the person +who related them to be suspected of lying, and the doctrine intended to +be supported thereby to be suspected as a fabulous invention. + +Of all the modes of evidence that ever were invented to obtain belief +to any system or opinion to which the name of religion has been given, +that of miracle, however successful the imposition may have been, is +the most inconsistent. For, in the first place, whenever recourse is +had to show, for the purpose of procuring that belief (for a miracle, +under any idea of the word, is a show) it implies a lameness or +weakness in the doctrine that is preached. And, in the second place, it +is degrading the Almighty into the character of a show-man, playing +tricks to amuse and make the people stare and wonder. It is also the +most equivocal sort of evidence that can be set up; for the belief is +not to depend upon the thing called a miracle, but upon the credit of +the reporter, who says that he saw it; and, therefore, the thing, were +it true, would have no better chance of being believed than if it were +a lie. + +Suppose I were to say, that when I sat down to write this book, a hand +presented itself in the air, took up the pen and wrote every word that +is herein written; would any body believe me? Certainly they would not. +Would they believe me a whit the more if the thing had been a fact? +Certainly they would not. Since then a real miracle, were it to happen, +would be subject to the same fate as the falsehood, the inconsistency +becomes the greater of supposing the Almighty would make use of means +that would not answer the purpose for which they were intended, even if +they were real. + +If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the +course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to +accomplish it, and we see an account given of such a miracle by the +person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily +decided, which is,—Is it more probable that nature should go out of her +course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our +time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe +that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, +therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle +tells a lie. + +The story of the whale swallowing Jonah, though a whale is large enough +to do it, borders greatly on the marvellous; but it would have +approached nearer to the idea of a miracle, if Jonah had swallowed the +whale. In this, which may serve for all cases of miracles, the matter +would decide itself as before stated, namely, Is it more probable that +a man should have, swallowed a whale, or told a lie? + +But suppose that Jonah had really swallowed the whale, and gone with it +in his belly to Nineveh, and to convince the people that it was true +have cast it up in their sight, of the full length and size of a whale, +would they not have believed him to have been the devil instead of a +prophet? or if the whale had carried Jonah to Nineveh, and cast him up +in the same public manner, would they not have believed the whale to +have been the devil, and Jonah one of his imps? + +The most extraordinary of all the things called miracles, related in +the New Testament, is that of the devil flying away with Jesus Christ, +and carrying him to the top of a high mountain; and to the top of the +highest pinnacle of the temple, and showing him and promising to him +all the kingdoms of the world. How happened it that he did not discover +America? or is it only with kingdoms that his sooty highness has any +interest. + +I have too much respect for the moral character of Christ to believe +that he told this whale of a miracle himself: neither is it easy to +account for what purpose it could have been fabricated, unless it were +to impose upon the connoisseurs of miracles, as is sometimes practised +upon the connoisseurs of Queen Anne’s farthings, and collectors of +relics and antiquities; or to render the belief of miracles ridiculous, +by outdoing miracle, as Don Quixote outdid chivalry; or to embarrass +the belief of miracles, by making it doubtful by what power, whether of +God or of the devil, any thing called a miracle was performed. It +requires, however, a great deal of faith in the devil to believe this +miracle. + +In every point of view in which those things called miracles can be +placed and considered, the reality of them is improbable, and their +existence unnecessary. They would not, as before observed, answer any +useful purpose, even if they were true; for it is more difficult to +obtain belief to a miracle, than to a principle evidently moral, +without any miracle. Moral principle speaks universally for itself. +Miracle could be but a thing of the moment, and seen but by a few; +after this it requires a transfer of faith from God to man to believe a +miracle upon man’s report. Instead, therefore, of admitting the +recitals of miracles as evidence of any system of religion being true, +they ought to be considered as symptoms of its being fabulous. It is +necessary to the full and upright character of truth that it rejects +the crutch; and it is consistent with the character of fable to seek +the aid that truth rejects. Thus much for Mystery and Miracle. + +As Mystery and Miracle took charge of the past and the present, +Prophecy took charge of the future, and rounded the tenses of faith. It +was not sufficient to know what had been done, but what would be done. +The supposed prophet was the supposed historian of times to come; and +if he happened, in shooting with a long bow of a thousand years, to +strike within a thousand miles of a mark, the ingenuity of posterity +could make it point-blank; and if he happened to be directly wrong, it +was only to suppose, as in the case of Jonah and Nineveh, that God had +repented himself and changed his mind. What a fool do fabulous systems +make of man! + +It has been shewn, in a former part of this work, that the original +meaning of the words prophet and prophesying has been changed, and that +a prophet, in the sense of the word as now used, is a creature of +modern invention; and it is owing to this change in the meaning of the +words, that the flights and metaphors of the Jewish poets, and phrases +and expressions now rendered obscure by our not being acquainted with +the local circumstances to which they applied at the time they were +used, have been erected into prophecies, and made to bend to +explanations at the will and whimsical conceits of sectaries, +expounders, and commentators. Every thing unintelligible was +prophetical, and every thing insignificant was typical. A blunder would +have served for a prophecy; and a dish-clout for a type. + +If by a prophet we are to suppose a man to whom the Almighty +communicated some event that would take place in future, either there +were such men, or there were not. If there were, it is consistent to +believe that the event so communicated would be told in terms that +could be understood, and not related in such a loose and obscure manner +as to be out of the comprehension of those that heard it, and so +equivocal as to fit almost any circumstance that might happen +afterwards. It is conceiving very irreverently of the Almighty, to +suppose he would deal in this jesting manner with mankind; yet all the +things called prophecies in the book called the Bible come under this +description. + +But it is with Prophecy as it is with Miracle. It could not answer the +purpose even if it were real. Those to whom a prophecy should be told +could not tell whether the man prophesied or lied, or whether it had +been revealed to him, or whether he conceited it; and if the thing that +he prophesied, or pretended to prophesy, should happen, or some thing +like it, among the multitude of things that are daily happening, nobody +could again know whether he foreknew it, or guessed at it, or whether +it was accidental. A prophet, therefore, is a character useless and +unnecessary; and the safe side of the case is to guard against being +imposed upon, by not giving credit to such relations. + +Upon the whole, Mystery, Miracle, and Prophecy, are appendages that +belong to fabulous and not to true religion. They are the means by +which so many Lo heres! and Lo theres! have been spread about the +world, and religion been made into a trade. The success of one impostor +gave encouragement to another, and the quieting salvo of doing some +good by keeping up a pious fraud protected them from remorse. + + + + +RECAPITULATION + + +Having now extended the subject to a greater length than I first +intended, I shall bring it to a close by abstracting a summary from the +whole. + +First, That the idea or belief of a word of God existing in print, or +in writing, or in speech, is inconsistent in itself for the reasons +already assigned. These reasons, among many others, are the want of an +universal language; the mutability of language; the errors to which +translations are subject, the possibility of totally suppressing such a +word; the probability of altering it, or of fabricating the whole, and +imposing it upon the world. + +Secondly, That the Creation we behold is the real and ever existing +word of God, in which we cannot be deceived. It proclaimeth his power, +it demonstrates his wisdom, it manifests his goodness and beneficence. + +Thirdly, That the moral duty of man consists in imitating the moral +goodness and beneficence of God manifested in the creation towards all +his creatures. That seeing as we daily do the goodness of God to all +men, it is an example calling upon all men to practise the same towards +each other; and, consequently, that every thing of persecution and +revenge between man and man, and every thing of cruelty to animals, is +a violation of moral duty. + +I trouble not myself about the manner of future existence. I content +myself with believing, even to positive conviction, that the power that +gave me existence is able to continue it, in any form and manner he +pleases, either with or without this body; and it appears more probable +to me that I shall continue to exist hereafter than that I should have +had existence, as I now have, before that existence began. + +It is certain that, in one point, all nations of the earth and all +religions agree. All believe in a God. The things in which they +disgrace are the redundancies annexed to that belief; and therefore, if +ever an universal religion should prevail, it will not be believing any +thing new, but in getting rid of redundancies, and believing as man +believed at first. [“In the childhood of the world,” according to the +first (French) version; and the strict translation of the final +sentence is: “Deism was the religion of Adam, supposing him not an +imaginary being; but none the less must it be left to all men to +follow, as is their right, the religion and worship they +prefer.”—Editor.] Adam, if ever there was such a man, was created a +Deist; but in the mean time, let every man follow, as he has a right to +do, the religion and worship he prefers. + + + + +THE AGE OF REASON - PART II + + + + +PREFACE + + +I have mentioned in the former part of The Age of Reason that it had +long been my intention to publish my thoughts upon Religion; but that I +had originally reserved it to a later period in life, intending it to +be the last work I should undertake. The circumstances, however, which +existed in France in the latter end of the year 1793, determined me to +delay it no longer. The just and humane principles of the Revolution +which Philosophy had first diffused, had been departed from. The Idea, +always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty,—that +priests could forgive sins,—though it seemed to exist no longer, had +blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the +commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution +had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled +Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine +of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others +daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also +intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself. + +Under these disadvantages, I began the former part of the Age of +Reason; I had, besides, neither Bible nor Testament [It must be borne +in mind that throughout this work Paine generally means by “Bible” only +the Old Testament, and speaks of the New as the “Testament.”—Editor.] +to refer to, though I was writing against both; nor could I procure +any; notwithstanding which I have produced a work that no Bible +Believer, though writing at his ease and with a Library of Church Books +about him, can refute. Towards the latter end of December of that year, +a motion was made and carried, to exclude foreigners from the +Convention. There were but two, Anacharsis Cloots and myself; and I saw +I was particularly pointed at by Bourdon de l’Oise, in his speech on +that motion. + +Conceiving, after this, that I had but a few days of liberty, I sat +down and brought the work to a close as speedily as possible; and I had +not finished it more than six hours, in the state it has since +appeared, [This is an allusion to the essay which Paine wrote at an +earlier part of 1793. See Introduction.—Editor.] before a guard came +there, about three in the morning, with an order signed by the two +Committees of Public Safety and Surety General, for putting me in +arrestation as a foreigner, and conveying me to the prison of the +Luxembourg. I contrived, in my way there, to call on Joel Barlow, and I +put the Manuscript of the work into his hands, as more safe than in my +possession in prison; and not knowing what might be the fate in France +either of the writer or the work, I addressed it to the protection of +the citizens of the United States. + +It is justice that I say, that the guard who executed this order, and +the interpreter to the Committee of General Surety, who accompanied +them to examine my papers, treated me not only with civility, but with +respect. The keeper of the ‘Luxembourg, Benoit, a man of good heart, +shewed to me every friendship in his power, as did also all his family, +while he continued in that station. He was removed from it, put into +arrestation, and carried before the tribunal upon a malignant +accusation, but acquitted. + +After I had been in Luxembourg about three weeks, the Americans then in +Paris went in a body to the Convention to reclaim me as their +countryman and friend; but were answered by the President, Vadier, who +was also President of the Committee of Surety General, and had signed +the order for my arrestation, that I was born in England. [These +excited Americans do not seem to have understood or reported the most +important item in Vadeer’s reply, namely that their application was +“unofficial,” i.e. not made through or sanctioned by Gouverneur Morris, +American Minister. For the detailed history of all this see vol. +iii.—Editor.] I heard no more, after this, from any person out of the +walls of the prison, till the fall of Robespierre, on the 9th of +Thermidor—July 27, 1794. + +About two months before this event, I was seized with a fever that in +its progress had every symptom of becoming mortal, and from the effects +of which I am not recovered. It was then that I remembered with renewed +satisfaction, and congratulated myself most sincerely, on having +written the former part of The Age of Reason. I had then but little +expectation of surviving, and those about me had less. I know therefore +by experience the conscientious trial of my own principles. + +I was then with three chamber comrades: Joseph Vanheule of Bruges, +Charles Bastfni, and Michael Robyns of Louvain. The unceasing and +anxious attention of these three friends to me, by night and day, I +remember with gratitude and mention with pleasure. It happened that a +physician (Dr. Graham) and a surgeon, (Mr. Bond,) part of the suite of +General O’Hara, [The officer who at Yorktown, Virginia, carried out the +sword of Cornwallis for surrender, and satirically offered it to +Rochambeau instead of Washington. Paine loaned him 300 pounds when he +(O’Hara) left the prison, the money he had concealed in the lock of his +cell-door.—Editor.] were then in the Luxembourg: I ask not myself +whether it be convenient to them, as men under the English Government, +that I express to them my thanks; but I should reproach myself if I did +not; and also to the physician of the Luxembourg, Dr. Markoski. + +I have some reason to believe, because I cannot discover any other, +that this illness preserved me in existence. Among the papers of +Robespierre that were examined and reported upon to the Convention by a +Committee of Deputies, is a note in the hand writing of Robespierre, in +the following words: + +“Demander que Thomas Paine soit decrete d’accusation, pour l’interet de +l’Amerique autant que de la France.” + +[Demand that Thomas Paine be decreed of accusation, for the interest of +America, as well as of France.] From what cause it was that the +intention was not put in execution, I know not, and cannot inform +myself; and therefore I ascribe it to impossibility, on account of that +illness. + +The Convention, to repair as much as lay in their power the injustice I +had sustained, invited me publickly and unanimously to return into the +Convention, and which I accepted, to shew I could bear an injury +without permitting it to injure my principles or my disposition. It is +not because right principles have been violated, that they are to be +abandoned. + +I have seen, since I have been at liberty, several publications +written, some in America, and some in England, as answers to the former +part of “The Age of Reason.” If the authors of these can amuse +themselves by so doing, I shall not interrupt them, They may write +against the work, and against me, as much as they please; they do me +more service than they intend, and I can have no objection that they +write on. They will find, however, by this Second Part, without its +being written as an answer to them, that they must return to their +work, and spin their cobweb over again. The first is brushed away by +accident. + +They will now find that I have furnished myself with a Bible and +Testament; and I can say also that I have found them to be much worse +books than I had conceived. If I have erred in any thing, in the former +part of the Age of Reason, it has been by speaking better of some parts +than they deserved. + +I observe, that all my opponents resort, more or less, to what they +call Scripture Evidence and Bible authority, to help them out. They are +so little masters of the subject, as to confound a dispute about +authenticity with a dispute about doctrines; I will, however, put them +right, that if they should be disposed to write any more, they may know +how to begin. + +THOMAS PAINE. October, 1795. + + + + +CHAPTER I. +THE OLD TESTAMENT + + +It has often been said that any thing may be proved from the Bible; but +before any thing can be admitted as proved by Bible, the Bible itself +must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth +of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted +as proof of any thing. + +It has been the practice of all Christian commentators on the Bible, +and of all Christian priests and preachers, to impose the Bible on the +world as a mass of truth, and as the word of God; they have disputed +and wrangled, and have anathematized each other about the supposeable +meaning of particular parts and passages therein; one has said and +insisted that such a passage meant such a thing, another that it meant +directly the contrary, and a third, that it meant neither one nor the +other, but something different from both; and this they have called +understanding the Bible. + +It has happened, that all the answers that I have seen to the former +part of ‘The Age of Reason’ have been written by priests: and these +pious men, like their predecessors, contend and wrangle, and understand +the Bible; each understands it differently, but each understands it +best; and they have agreed in nothing but in telling their readers that +Thomas Paine understands it not. + +Now instead of wasting their time, and heating themselves in fractious +disputations about doctrinal points drawn from the Bible, these men +ought to know, and if they do not it is civility to inform them, that +the first thing to be understood is, whether there is sufficient +authority for believing the Bible to be the word of God, or whether +there is not? + +There are matters in that book, said to be done by the express command +of God, that are as shocking to humanity, and to every idea we have of +moral justice, as any thing done by Robespierre, by Carrier, by Joseph +le Bon, in France, by the English government in the East Indies, or by +any other assassin in modern times. When we read in the books ascribed +to Moses, Joshua, etc., that they (the Israelites) came by stealth upon +whole nations of people, who, as the history itself shews, had given +them no offence; that they put all those nations to the sword; that +they spared neither age nor infancy; that they utterly destroyed men, +women and children; that they left not a soul to breathe; expressions +that are repeated over and over again in those books, and that too with +exulting ferocity; are we sure these things are facts? are we sure that +the Creator of man commissioned those things to be done? Are we sure +that the books that tell us so were written by his authority? + +It is not the antiquity of a tale that is an evidence of its truth; on +the contrary, it is a symptom of its being fabulous; for the more +ancient any history pretends to be, the more it has the resemblance of +a fable. The origin of every nation is buried in fabulous tradition, +and that of the Jews is as much to be suspected as any other. + +To charge the commission of things upon the Almighty, which in their +own nature, and by every rule of moral justice, are crimes, as all +assassination is, and more especially the assassination of infants, is +matter of serious concern. The Bible tells us, that those +assassinations were done by the express command of God. To believe +therefore the Bible to be true, we must unbelieve all our belief in the +moral justice of God; for wherein could crying or smiling infants +offend? And to read the Bible without horror, we must undo every thing +that is tender, sympathising, and benevolent in the heart of man. +Speaking for myself, if I had no other evidence that the Bible is +fabulous, than the sacrifice I must make to believe it to be true, that +alone would be sufficient to determine my choice. + +But in addition to all the moral evidence against the Bible, I will, in +the progress of this work, produce such other evidence as even a priest +cannot deny; and show, from that evidence, that the Bible is not +entitled to credit, as being the word of God. + +But, before I proceed to this examination, I will show wherein the +Bible differs from all other ancient writings with respect to the +nature of the evidence necessary to establish its authenticity; and +this is the more proper to be done, because the advocates of the Bible, +in their answers to the former part of ‘The Age of Reason,’ undertake +to say, and they put some stress thereon, that the authenticity of the +Bible is as well established as that of any other ancient book: as if +our belief of the one could become any rule for our belief of the +other. + +I know, however, but of one ancient book that authoritatively +challenges universal consent and belief, and that is Euclid’s Elements +of Geometry; [Euclid, according to chronological history, lived three +hundred years before Christ, and about one hundred before Archimedes; +he was of the city of Alexandria, in Egypt.—Author.] and the reason is, +because it is a book of self-evident demonstration, entirely +independent of its author, and of every thing relating to time, place, +and circumstance. The matters contained in that book would have the +same authority they now have, had they been written by any other +person, or had the work been anonymous, or had the author never been +known; for the identical certainty of who was the author makes no part +of our belief of the matters contained in the book. But it is quite +otherwise with respect to the books ascribed to Moses, to Joshua, to +Samuel, etc.: those are books of testimony, and they testify of things +naturally incredible; and therefore the whole of our belief, as to the +authenticity of those books, rests, in the first place, upon the +certainty that they were written by Moses, Joshua, and Samuel; +secondly, upon the credit we give to their testimony. We may believe +the first, that is, may believe the certainty of the authorship, and +yet not the testimony; in the same manner that we may believe that a +certain person gave evidence upon a case, and yet not believe the +evidence that he gave. But if it should be found that the books +ascribed to Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, were not written by Moses, +Joshua, and Samuel, every part of the authority and authenticity of +those books is gone at once; for there can be no such thing as forged +or invented testimony; neither can there be anonymous testimony, more +especially as to things naturally incredible; such as that of talking +with God face to face, or that of the sun and moon standing still at +the command of a man. + +The greatest part of the other ancient books are works of genius; of +which kind are those ascribed to Homer, to Plato, to Aristotle, to +Demosthenes, to Cicero, etc. Here again the author is not an essential +in the credit we give to any of those works; for as works of genius +they would have the same merit they have now, were they anonymous. +Nobody believes the Trojan story, as related by Homer, to be true; for +it is the poet only that is admired, and the merit of the poet will +remain, though the story be fabulous. But if we disbelieve the matters +related by the Bible authors (Moses for instance) as we disbelieve the +things related by Homer, there remains nothing of Moses in our +estimation, but an imposter. As to the ancient historians, from +Herodotus to Tacitus, we credit them as far as they relate things +probable and credible, and no further: for if we do, we must believe +the two miracles which Tacitus relates were performed by Vespasian, +that of curing a lame man, and a blind man, in just the same manner as +the same things are told of Jesus Christ by his historians. We must +also believe the miracles cited by Josephus, that of the sea of +Pamphilia opening to let Alexander and his army pass, as is related of +the Red Sea in Exodus. These miracles are quite as well authenticated +as the Bible miracles, and yet we do not believe them; consequently the +degree of evidence necessary to establish our belief of things +naturally incredible, whether in the Bible or elsewhere, is far greater +than that which obtains our belief to natural and probable things; and +therefore the advocates for the Bible have no claim to our belief of +the Bible because that we believe things stated in other ancient +writings; since that we believe the things stated in those writings no +further than they are probable and credible, or because they are +self-evident, like Euclid; or admire them because they are elegant, +like Homer; or approve them because they are sedate, like Plato; or +judicious, like Aristotle. + +Having premised these things, I proceed to examine the authenticity of +the Bible; and I begin with what are called the five books of Moses, +Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. My intention is +to shew that those books are spurious, and that Moses is not the author +of them; and still further, that they were not written in the time of +Moses nor till several hundred years afterwards; that they are no other +than an attempted history of the life of Moses, and of the times in +which he is said to have lived, and also of the times prior thereto, +written by some very ignorant and stupid pretenders to authorship, +several hundred years after the death of Moses; as men now write +histories of things that happened, or are supposed to have happened, +several hundred or several thousand years ago. + +The evidence that I shall produce in this case is from the books +themselves; and I will confine myself to this evidence only. Were I to +refer for proofs to any of the ancient authors, whom the advocates of +the Bible call prophane authors, they would controvert that authority, +as I controvert theirs: I will therefore meet them on their own ground, +and oppose them with their own weapon, the Bible. + +In the first place, there is no affirmative evidence that Moses is the +author of those books; and that he is the author, is altogether an +unfounded opinion, got abroad nobody knows how. The style and manner in +which those books are written give no room to believe, or even to +suppose, they were written by Moses; for it is altogether the style and +manner of another person speaking of Moses. In Exodus, Leviticus and +Numbers, (for every thing in Genesis is prior to the times of Moses and +not the least allusion is made to him therein,) the whole, I say, of +these books is in the third person; it is always, the Lord said unto +Moses, or Moses said unto the Lord; or Moses said unto the people, or +the people said unto Moses; and this is the style and manner that +historians use in speaking of the person whose lives and actions they +are writing. It may be said, that a man may speak of himself in the +third person, and, therefore, it may be supposed that Moses did; but +supposition proves nothing; and if the advocates for the belief that +Moses wrote those books himself have nothing better to advance than +supposition, they may as well be silent. + +But granting the grammatical right, that Moses might speak of himself +in the third person, because any man might speak of himself in that +manner, it cannot be admitted as a fact in those books, that it is +Moses who speaks, without rendering Moses truly ridiculous and +absurd:—for example, Numbers xii. 3: “Now the man Moses was very MEEK, +above all the men which were on the face of the earth.” If Moses said +this of himself, instead of being the meekest of men, he was one of the +most vain and arrogant coxcombs; and the advocates for those books may +now take which side they please, for both sides are against them: if +Moses was not the author, the books are without authority; and if he +was the author, the author is without credit, because to boast of +meekness is the reverse of meekness, and is a lie in sentiment. + +In Deuteronomy, the style and manner of writing marks more evidently +than in the former books that Moses is not the writer. The manner here +used is dramatical; the writer opens the subject by a short +introductory discourse, and then introduces Moses as in the act of +speaking, and when he has made Moses finish his harrangue, he (the +writer) resumes his own part, and speaks till he brings Moses forward +again, and at last closes the scene with an account of the death, +funeral, and character of Moses. + +This interchange of speakers occurs four times in this book: from the +first verse of the first chapter, to the end of the fifth verse, it is +the writer who speaks; he then introduces Moses as in the act of making +his harrangue, and this continues to the end of the 40th verse of the +fourth chapter; here the writer drops Moses, and speaks historically of +what was done in consequence of what Moses, when living, is supposed to +have said, and which the writer has dramatically rehearsed. + +The writer opens the subject again in the first verse of the fifth +chapter, though it is only by saying that Moses called the people of +Israel together; he then introduces Moses as before, and continues him +as in the act of speaking, to the end of the 26th chapter. He does the +same thing at the beginning of the 27th chapter; and continues Moses as +in the act of speaking, to the end of the 28th chapter. At the 29th +chapter the writer speaks again through the whole of the first verse, +and the first line of the second verse, where he introduces Moses for +the last time, and continues him as in the act of speaking, to the end +of the 33d chapter. + +The writer having now finished the rehearsal on the part of Moses, +comes forward, and speaks through the whole of the last chapter: he +begins by telling the reader, that Moses went up to the top of Pisgah, +that he saw from thence the land which (the writer says) had been +promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; that he, Moses, died there in +the land of Moab, that he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, +but that no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day, that is unto +the time in which the writer lived who wrote the book of Deuteronomy. +The writer then tells us, that Moses was one hundred and ten years of +age when he died—that his eye was not dim, nor his natural force +abated; and he concludes by saying, that there arose not a prophet +since in Israel like unto Moses, whom, says this anonymous writer, the +Lord knew face to face. + +Having thus shewn, as far as grammatical evidence implies, that Moses +was not the writer of those books, I will, after making a few +observations on the inconsistencies of the writer of the book of +Deuteronomy, proceed to shew, from the historical and chronological +evidence contained in those books, that Moses was not, because he could +not be, the writer of them; and consequently, that there is no +authority for believing that the inhuman and horrid butcheries of men, +women, and children, told of in those books, were done, as those books +say they were, at the command of God. It is a duty incumbent on every +true deist, that he vindicates the moral justice of God against the +calumnies of the Bible. + +The writer of the book of Deuteronomy, whoever he was, for it is an +anonymous work, is obscure, and also contradictory with himself in the +account he has given of Moses. + +After telling that Moses went to the top of Pisgah (and it does not +appear from any account that he ever came down again) he tells us, that +Moses died there in the land of Moab, and that he buried him in a +valley in the land of Moab; but as there is no antecedent to the +pronoun he, there is no knowing who he was, that did bury him. If the +writer meant that he (God) buried him, how should he (the writer) know +it? or why should we (the readers) believe him? since we know not who +the writer was that tells us so, for certainly Moses could not himself +tell where he was buried. + +The writer also tells us, that no man knoweth where the sepulchre of +Moses is unto this day, meaning the time in which this writer lived; +how then should he know that Moses was buried in a valley in the land +of Moab? for as the writer lived long after the time of Moses, as is +evident from his using the expression of unto this day, meaning a great +length of time after the death of Moses, he certainly was not at his +funeral; and on the other hand, it is impossible that Moses himself +could say that no man knoweth where the sepulchre is unto this day. To +make Moses the speaker, would be an improvement on the play of a child +that hides himself and cries nobody can find me; nobody can find Moses. + +This writer has no where told us how he came by the speeches which he +has put into the mouth of Moses to speak, and therefore we have a right +to conclude that he either composed them himself, or wrote them from +oral tradition. One or other of these is the more probable, since he +has given, in the fifth chapter, a table of commandments, in which that +called the fourth commandment is different from the fourth commandment +in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. In that of Exodus, the reason given +for keeping the seventh day is, because (says the commandment) God made +the heavens and the earth in six days, and rested on the seventh; but +in that of Deuteronomy, the reason given is, that it was the day on +which the children of Israel came out of Egypt, and therefore, says +this commandment, the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the +sabbath-day This makes no mention of the creation, nor that of the +coming out of Egypt. There are also many things given as laws of Moses +in this book, that are not to be found in any of the other books; among +which is that inhuman and brutal law, xxi. 18, 19, 20, 21, which +authorizes parents, the father and the mother, to bring their own +children to have them stoned to death for what it pleased them to call +stubbornness.—But priests have always been fond of preaching up +Deuteronomy, for Deuteronomy preaches up tythes; and it is from this +book, xxv. 4, they have taken the phrase, and applied it to tything, +that “thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth Out the corn:” and +that this might not escape observation, they have noted it in the table +of contents at the head of the chapter, though it is only a single +verse of less than two lines. O priests! priests! ye are willing to be +compared to an ox, for the sake of tythes. [An elegant pocket edition +of Paine’s Theological Works (London. R. Carlile, 1822) has in its +title a picture of Paine, as a Moses in evening dress, unfolding the +two tables of his “Age of Reason” to a farmer from whom the Bishop of +Llandaff (who replied to this work) has taken a sheaf and a lamb which +he is carrying to a church at the summit of a well stocked +hill.—Editor.]—Though it is impossible for us to know identically who +the writer of Deuteronomy was, it is not difficult to discover him +professionally, that he was some Jewish priest, who lived, as I shall +shew in the course of this work, at least three hundred and fifty years +after the time of Moses. + +I come now to speak of the historical and chronological evidence. The +chronology that I shall use is the Bible chronology; for I mean not to +go out of the Bible for evidence of any thing, but to make the Bible +itself prove historically and chronologically that Moses is not the +author of the books ascribed to him. It is therefore proper that I +inform the readers (such an one at least as may not have the +opportunity of knowing it) that in the larger Bibles, and also in some +smaller ones, there is a series of chronology printed in the margin of +every page for the purpose of showing how long the historical matters +stated in each page happened, or are supposed to have happened, before +Christ, and consequently the distance of time between one historical +circumstance and another. + +I begin with the book of Genesis.—In Genesis xiv., the writer gives an +account of Lot being taken prisoner in a battle between the four kings +against five, and carried off; and that when the account of Lot being +taken came to Abraham, that he armed all his household and marched to +rescue Lot from the captors; and that he pursued them unto Dan. (ver. +14.) + +To shew in what manner this expression of Pursuing them unto Dan +applies to the case in question, I will refer to two circumstances, the +one in America, the other in France. The city now called New York, in +America, was originally New Amsterdam; and the town in France, lately +called Havre Marat, was before called Havre-de-Grace. New Amsterdam was +changed to New York in the year 1664; Havre-de-Grace to Havre Marat in +the year 1793. Should, therefore, any writing be found, though without +date, in which the name of New-York should be mentioned, it would be +certain evidence that such a writing could not have been written +before, and must have been written after New Amsterdam was changed to +New York, and consequently not till after the year 1664, or at least +during the course of that year. And in like manner, any dateless +writing, with the name of Havre Marat, would be certain evidence that +such a writing must have been written after Havre-de-Grace became Havre +Marat, and consequently not till after the year 1793, or at least +during the course of that year. + +I now come to the application of those cases, and to show that there +was no such place as Dan till many years after the death of Moses; and +consequently, that Moses could not be the writer of the book of +Genesis, where this account of pursuing them unto Dan is given. + +The place that is called Dan in the Bible was originally a town of the +Gentiles, called Laish; and when the tribe of Dan seized upon this +town, they changed its name to Dan, in commemoration of Dan, who was +the father of that tribe, and the great grandson of Abraham. + +To establish this in proof, it is necessary to refer from Genesis to +chapter xviii. of the book called the Book of judges. It is there said +(ver. 27) that “they (the Danites) came unto Laish to a people that +were quiet and secure, and they smote them with the edge of the sword +[the Bible is filled with murder] and burned the city with fire; and +they built a city, (ver. 28,) and dwelt therein, and [ver. 29,] they +called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan, their father; +howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first.” + +This account of the Danites taking possession of Laish and changing it +to Dan, is placed in the book of Judges immediately after the death of +Samson. The death of Samson is said to have happened B.C. 1120 and that +of Moses B.C. 1451; and, therefore, according to the historical +arrangement, the place was not called Dan till 331 years after the +death of Moses. + +There is a striking confusion between the historical and the +chronological arrangement in the book of judges. The last five +chapters, as they stand in the book, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, are put +chronologically before all the preceding chapters; they are made to be +28 years before the 16th chapter, 266 before the 15th, 245 before the +13th, 195 before the 9th, 90 before the 4th, and 15 years before the +1st chapter. This shews the uncertain and fabulous state of the Bible. +According to the chronological arrangement, the taking of Laish, and +giving it the name of Dan, is made to be twenty years after the death +of Joshua, who was the successor of Moses; and by the historical order, +as it stands in the book, it is made to be 306 years after the death of +Joshua, and 331 after that of Moses; but they both exclude Moses from +being the writer of Genesis, because, according to either of the +statements, no such a place as Dan existed in the time of Moses; and +therefore the writer of Genesis must have been some person who lived +after the town of Laish had the name of Dan; and who that person was +nobody knows, and consequently the book of Genesis is anonymous, and +without authority. + +I come now to state another point of historical and chronological +evidence, and to show therefrom, as in the preceding case, that Moses +is not the author of the book of Genesis. + +In Genesis xxxvi. there is given a genealogy of the sons and +descendants of Esau, who are called Edomites, and also a list by name +of the kings of Edom; in enumerating of which, it is said, verse 31, +“And these are the kings that reigned in Edom, before there reigned any +king over the children of Israel.” + +Now, were any dateless writing to be found, in which, speaking of any +past events, the writer should say, these things happened before there +was any Congress in America, or before there was any Convention in +France, it would be evidence that such writing could not have been +written before, and could only be written after there was a Congress in +America or a Convention in France, as the case might be; and, +consequently, that it could not be written by any person who died +before there was a Congress in the one country, or a Convention in the +other. + +Nothing is more frequent, as well in history as in conversation, than +to refer to a fact in the room of a date: it is most natural so to do, +because a fact fixes itself in the memory better than a date; secondly, +because the fact includes the date, and serves to give two ideas at +once; and this manner of speaking by circumstances implies as +positively that the fact alluded to is past, as if it was so expressed. +When a person in speaking upon any matter, says, it was before I was +married, or before my son was born, or before I went to America, or +before I went to France, it is absolutely understood, and intended to +be understood, that he has been married, that he has had a son, that he +has been in America, or been in France. Language does not admit of +using this mode of expression in any other sense; and whenever such an +expression is found anywhere, it can only be understood in the sense in +which only it could have been used. + +The passage, therefore, that I have quoted—that “these are the kings +that reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king over the children +of Israel,” could only have been written after the first king began to +reign over them; and consequently that the book of Genesis, so far from +having been written by Moses, could not have been written till the time +of Saul at least. This is the positive sense of the passage; but the +expression, any king, implies more kings than one, at least it implies +two, and this will carry it to the time of David; and, if taken in a +general sense, it carries itself through all times of the Jewish +monarchy. + +Had we met with this verse in any part of the Bible that professed to +have been written after kings began to reign in Israel, it would have +been impossible not to have seen the application of it. It happens then +that this is the case; the two books of Chronicles, which give a +history of all the kings of Israel, are professedly, as well as in +fact, written after the Jewish monarchy began; and this verse that I +have quoted, and all the remaining verses of Genesis xxxvi. are, word +for word, In 1 Chronicles i., beginning at the 43d verse. + +It was with consistency that the writer of the Chronicles could say as +he has said, 1 Chron. i. 43, “These are the kings that reigned in Edom, +before there reigned any king over the children of Israel,” because he +was going to give, and has given, a list of the kings that had reigned +in Israel; but as it is impossible that the same expression could have +been used before that period, it is as certain as any thing can be +proved from historical language, that this part of Genesis is taken +from Chronicles, and that Genesis is not so old as Chronicles, and +probably not so old as the book of Homer, or as Æsop’s Fables; +admitting Homer to have been, as the tables of chronology state, +contemporary with David or Solomon, and Æsop to have lived about the +end of the Jewish monarchy. + +Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which +only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there +remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, +and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies. The +story of Eve and the serpent, and of Noah and his ark, drops to a level +with the Arabian Tales, without the merit of being entertaining, and +the account of men living to eight and nine hundred years becomes as +fabulous as the immortality of the giants of the Mythology. + +Besides, the character of Moses, as stated in the Bible, is the most +horrid that can be imagined. If those accounts be true, he was the +wretch that first began and carried on wars on the score or on the +pretence of religion; and under that mask, or that infatuation, +committed the most unexampled atrocities that are to be found in the +history of any nation. Of which I will state only one instance: + +When the Jewish army returned from one of their plundering and +murdering excursions, the account goes on as follows (Numbers xxxi. +13): “And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the +congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp; and Moses was +wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, +and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle; and Moses said +unto them, ‘Have ye saved all the women alive?’ behold, these caused +the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit +trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague +among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, ‘kill every male +among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by +lying with him; but all the women-children that have not known a man by +lying with him, keep alive for Yourselves.’” + +Among the detestable villains that in any period of the world have +disgraced the name of man, it is impossible to find a greater than +Moses, if this account be true. Here is an order to butcher the boys, +to massacre the mothers, and debauch the daughters. + +Let any mother put herself in the situation of those mothers, one child +murdered, another destined to violation, and herself in the hands of an +executioner: let any daughter put herself in the situation of those +daughters, destined as a prey to the murderers of a mother and a +brother, and what will be their feelings? It is in vain that we attempt +to impose upon nature, for nature will have her course, and the +religion that tortures all her social ties is a false religion. + +After this detestable order, follows an account of the plunder taken, +and the manner of dividing it; and here it is that the profaneings of +priestly hypocrisy increases the catalogue of crimes. Verse 37, “And +the Lord’s tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and +fifteen; and the beeves were thirty and six thousand, of which the +Lord’s tribute was threescore and twelve; and the asses were thirty +thousand, of which the Lord’s tribute was threescore and one; and the +persons were sixteen thousand, of which the Lord’s tribute was thirty +and two.” In short, the matters contained in this chapter, as well as +in many other parts of the Bible, are too horrid for humanity to read, +or for decency to hear; for it appears, from the 35th verse of this +chapter, that the number of women-children consigned to debauchery by +the order of Moses was thirty-two thousand. + +People in general know not what wickedness there is in this pretended +word of God. Brought up in habits of superstition, they take it for +granted that the Bible is true, and that it is good; they permit +themselves not to doubt of it, and they carry the ideas they form of +the benevolence of the Almighty to the book which they have been taught +to believe was written by his authority. Good heavens! it is quite +another thing, it is a book of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy; for +what can be greater blasphemy, than to ascribe the wickedness of man to +the orders of the Almighty! + +But to return to my subject, that of showing that Moses is not the +author of the books ascribed to him, and that the Bible is spurious. +The two instances I have already given would be sufficient, without any +additional evidence, to invalidate the authenticity of any book that +pretended to be four or five hundred years more ancient than the +matters it speaks of, refers to, them as facts; for in the case of +pursuing them unto Dan, and of the kings that reigned over the children +of Israel; not even the flimsy pretence of prophecy can be pleaded. The +expressions are in the preter tense, and it would be downright idiotism +to say that a man could prophecy in the preter tense. + +But there are many other passages scattered throughout those books that +unite in the same point of evidence. It is said in Exodus, (another of +the books ascribed to Moses,) xvi. 35: “And the children of Israel did +eat manna until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat manna until +they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan.” + +Whether the children of Israel ate manna or not, or what manna was, or +whether it was anything more than a kind of fungus or small mushroom, +or other vegetable substance common to that part of the country, makes +no part of my argument; all that I mean to show is, that it is not +Moses that could write this account, because the account extends itself +beyond the life time of Moses. Moses, according to the Bible, (but it +is such a book of lies and contradictions there is no knowing which +part to believe, or whether any) died in the wilderness, and never came +upon the borders of ‘the land of Canaan; and consequently, it could not +be he that said what the children of Israel did, or what they ate when +they came there. This account of eating manna, which they tell us was +written by Moses, extends itself to the time of Joshua, the successor +of Moses, as appears by the account given in the book of Joshua, after +the children of Israel had passed the river Jordan, and came into the +borders of the land of Canaan. Joshua, v. 12: “And the manna ceased on +the morrow, after they had eaten of the old corn of the land; neither +had the children of Israel manna any more, but they did eat of the +fruit of the land of Canaan that year.” + +But a more remarkable instance than this occurs in Deuteronomy; which, +while it shows that Moses could not be the writer of that book, shows +also the fabulous notions that prevailed at that time about giants’ In +Deuteronomy iii. 11, among the conquests said to be made by Moses, is +an account of the taking of Og, king of Bashan: “For only Og, king of +Bashan, remained of the race of giants; behold, his bedstead was a +bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine +cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after +the cubit of a man.” A cubit is 1 foot 9 888/1000 inches; the length +therefore of the bed was 16 feet 4 inches, and the breadth 7 feet 4 +inches: thus much for this giant’s bed. Now for the historical part, +which, though the evidence is not so direct and positive as in the +former cases, is nevertheless very presumable and corroborating +evidence, and is better than the best evidence on the contrary side. + +The writer, by way of proving the existence of this giant, refers to +his bed, as an ancient relick, and says, is it not in Rabbath (or +Rabbah) of the children of Ammon? meaning that it is; for such is +frequently the bible method of affirming a thing. But it could not be +Moses that said this, because Moses could know nothing about Rabbah, +nor of what was in it. Rabbah was not a city belonging to this giant +king, nor was it one of the cities that Moses took. The knowledge +therefore that this bed was at Rabbah, and of the particulars of its +dimensions, must be referred to the time when Rabbah was taken, and +this was not till four hundred years after the death of Moses; for +which, see 2 Sam. xii. 26: “And Joab [David’s general] fought against +Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city,” etc. + +As I am not undertaking to point out all the contradictions in time, +place, and circumstance that abound in the books ascribed to Moses, and +which prove to demonstration that those books could not be written by +Moses, nor in the time of Moses, I proceed to the book of Joshua, and +to shew that Joshua is not the author of that book, and that it is +anonymous and without authority. The evidence I shall produce is +contained in the book itself: I will not go out of the Bible for proof +against the supposed authenticity of the Bible. False testimony is +always good against itself. + +Joshua, according to Joshua i., was the immediate successor of Moses; +he was, moreover, a military man, which Moses was not; and he continued +as chief of the people of Israel twenty-five years; that is, from the +time that Moses died, which, according to the Bible chronology, was +B.C. 1451, until B.C. 1426, when, according to the same chronology, +Joshua died. If, therefore, we find in this book, said to have been +written by Joshua, references to facts done after the death of Joshua, +it is evidence that Joshua could not be the author; and also that the +book could not have been written till after the time of the latest fact +which it records. As to the character of the book, it is horrid; it is +a military history of rapine and murder, as savage and brutal as those +recorded of his predecessor in villainy and hypocrisy, Moses; and the +blasphemy consists, as in the former books, in ascribing those deeds to +the orders of the Almighty. + +In the first place, the book of Joshua, as is the case in the preceding +books, is written in the third person; it is the historian of Joshua +that speaks, for it would have been absurd and vainglorious that Joshua +should say of himself, as is said of him in the last verse of the sixth +chapter, that “his fame was noised throughout all the country.”—I now +come more immediately to the proof. + +In Joshua xxiv. 31, it is said “And Israel served the Lord all the days +of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that over-lived Joshua.” Now, +in the name of common sense, can it be Joshua that relates what people +had done after he was dead? This account must not only have been +written by some historian that lived after Joshua, but that lived also +after the elders that out-lived Joshua. + +There are several passages of a general meaning with respect to time, +scattered throughout the book of Joshua, that carries the time in which +the book was written to a distance from the time of Joshua, but without +marking by exclusion any particular time, as in the passage above +quoted. In that passage, the time that intervened between the death of +Joshua and the death of the elders is excluded descriptively and +absolutely, and the evidence substantiates that the book could not have +been written till after the death of the last. + +But though the passages to which I allude, and which I am going to +quote, do not designate any particular time by exclusion, they imply a +time far more distant from the days of Joshua than is contained between +the death of Joshua and the death of the elders. Such is the passage, +x. 14, where, after giving an account that the sun stood still upon +Gibeon, and the moon in the valley of Ajalon, at the command of Joshua, +(a tale only fit to amuse children) [NOTE: This tale of the sun +standing still upon Motint Gibeon, and the moon in the valley of +Ajalon, is one of those fables that detects itself. Such a circumstance +could not have happened without being known all over the world. One +half would have wondered why the sun did not rise, and the other why it +did not set; and the tradition of it would be universal; whereas there +is not a nation in the world that knows anything about it. But why must +the moon stand still? What occasion could there be for moonlight in the +daytime, and that too whilst the sun shined? As a poetical figure, the +whole is well enough; it is akin to that in the song of Deborah and +Barak, The stars in their courses fought against Sisera; but it is +inferior to the figurative declaration of Mahomet to the persons who +came to expostulate with him on his goings on, Wert thou, said he, to +come to me with the sun in thy right hand and the moon in thy left, it +should not alter my career. For Joshua to have exceeded Mahomet, he +should have put the sun and moon, one in each pocket, and carried them +as Guy Faux carried his dark lanthorn, and taken them out to shine as +he might happen to want them. The sublime and the ridiculous are often +so nearly related that it is difficult to class them separately. One +step above the sublime makes the ridiculous, and one step above the +ridiculous makes the sublime again; the account, however, abstracted +from the poetical fancy, shews the ignorance of Joshua, for he should +have commanded the earth to have stood still.—Author.] the passage +says: “And there was no day like that, before it, nor after it, that +the Lord hearkened to the voice of a man.” + +The time implied by the expression after it, that is, after that day, +being put in comparison with all the time that passed before it, must, +in order to give any expressive signification to the passage, mean a +great length of time:—for example, it would have been ridiculous to +have said so the next day, or the next week, or the next month, or the +next year; to give therefore meaning to the passage, comparative with +the wonder it relates, and the prior time it alludes to, it must mean +centuries of years; less however than one would be trifling, and less +than two would be barely admissible. + +A distant, but general time is also expressed in chapter viii.; where, +after giving an account of the taking the city of Ai, it is said, ver. +28th, “And Joshua burned Ai, and made it an heap for ever, a desolation +unto this day;” and again, ver. 29, where speaking of the king of Ai, +whom Joshua had hanged, and buried at the entering of the gate, it is +said, “And he raised thereon a great heap of stones, which remaineth +unto this day,” that is, unto the day or time in which the writer of +the book of Joshua lived. And again, in chapter x. where, after +speaking of the five kings whom Joshua had hanged on five trees, and +then thrown in a cave, it is said, “And he laid great stones on the +cave’s mouth, which remain unto this very day.” + +In enumerating the several exploits of Joshua, and of the tribes, and +of the places which they conquered or attempted, it is said, xv. 63, +“As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of +Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the +children of Judah AT JERUSALEM unto this day.” The question upon this +passage is, At what time did the Jebusites and the children of Judah +dwell together at Jerusalem? As this matter occurs again in judges i. I +shall reserve my observations till I come to that part. + +Having thus shewn from the book of Joshua itself, without any auxiliary +evidence whatever, that Joshua is not the author of that book, and that +it is anonymous, and consequently without authority, I proceed, as +before-mentioned, to the book of Judges. + +The book of Judges is anonymous on the face of it; and, therefore, even +the pretence is wanting to call it the word of God; it has not so much +as a nominal voucher; it is altogether fatherless. + +This book begins with the same expression as the book of Joshua. That +of Joshua begins, chap i. 1, Now after the death of Moses, etc., and +this of the Judges begins, Now after the death of Joshua, etc. This, +and the similarity of stile between the two books, indicate that they +are the work of the same author; but who he was, is altogether unknown; +the only point that the book proves is that the author lived long after +the time of Joshua; for though it begins as if it followed immediately +after his death, the second chapter is an epitome or abstract of the +whole book, which, according to the Bible chronology, extends its +history through a space of 306 years; that is, from the death of +Joshua, B.C. 1426 to the death of Samson, B.C. 1120, and only 25 years +before Saul went to seek his father’s asses, and was made king. But +there is good reason to believe, that it was not written till the time +of David, at least, and that the book of Joshua was not written before +the same time. + +In Judges i., the writer, after announcing the death of Joshua, +proceeds to tell what happened between the children of Judah and the +native inhabitants of the land of Canaan. In this statement the writer, +having abruptly mentioned Jerusalem in the 7th verse, says immediately +after, in the 8th verse, by way of explanation, “Now the children of +Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and taken it;” consequently this +book could not have been written before Jerusalem had been taken. The +reader will recollect the quotation I have just before made from Joshua +xv. 63, where it said that the Jebusites dwell with the children of +Judah at Jerusalem at this day; meaning the time when the book of +Joshua was written. + +The evidence I have already produced to prove that the books I have +hitherto treated of were not written by the persons to whom they are +ascribed, nor till many years after their death, if such persons ever +lived, is already so abundant, that I can afford to admit this passage +with less weight than I am entitled to draw from it. For the case is, +that so far as the Bible can be credited as an history, the city of +Jerusalem was not taken till the time of David; and consequently, that +the book of Joshua, and of Judges, were not written till after the +commencement of the reign of David, which was 370 years after the death +of Joshua. + +The name of the city that was afterward called Jerusalem was originally +Jebus, or Jebusi, and was the capital of the Jebusites. The account of +David’s taking this city is given in 2 Samuel, v. 4, etc.; also in 1 +Chron. xiv. 4, etc. There is no mention in any part of the Bible that +it was ever taken before, nor any account that favours such an opinion. +It is not said, either in Samuel or in Chronicles, that they “utterly +destroyed men, women and children, that they left not a soul to +breathe,” as is said of their other conquests; and the silence here +observed implies that it was taken by capitulation; and that the +Jebusites, the native inhabitants, continued to live in the place after +it was taken. The account therefore, given in Joshua, that “the +Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah” at Jerusalem at this day, +corresponds to no other time than after taking the city by David. + +Having now shown that every book in the Bible, from Genesis to Judges, +is without authenticity, I come to the book of Ruth, an idle, bungling +story, foolishly told, nobody knows by whom, about a strolling +country-girl creeping slily to bed to her cousin Boaz. [The text of +Ruth does not imply the unpleasant sense Paine’s words are likely to +convey.—Editor.] Pretty stuff indeed to be called the word of God. It +is, however, one of the best books in the Bible, for it is free from +murder and rapine. + +I come next to the two books of Samuel, and to shew that those books +were not written by Samuel, nor till a great length of time after the +death of Samuel; and that they are, like all the former books, +anonymous, and without authority. + +To be convinced that these books have been written much later than the +time of Samuel, and consequently not by him, it is only necessary to +read the account which the writer gives of Saul going to seek his +father’s asses, and of his interview with Samuel, of whom Saul went to +enquire about those lost asses, as foolish people now-a-days go to a +conjuror to enquire after lost things. + +The writer, in relating this story of Saul, Samuel, and the asses, does +not tell it as a thing that had just then happened, but as an ancient +story in the time this writer lived; for he tells it in the language or +terms used at the time that Samuel lived, which obliges the writer to +explain the story in the terms or language used in the time the writer +lived. + +Samuel, in the account given of him in the first of those books, chap. +ix. 13 called the seer; and it is by this term that Saul enquires after +him, ver. 11, “And as they [Saul and his servant] went up the hill to +the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water; and they +said unto them, Is the seer here?” Saul then went according to the +direction of these maidens, and met Samuel without knowing him, and +said unto him, ver. 18, “Tell me, I pray thee, where the seer’s house +is? and Samuel answered Saul, and said, I am the seer.” + +As the writer of the book of Samuel relates these questions and +answers, in the language or manner of speaking used in the time they +are said to have been spoken, and as that manner of speaking was out of +use when this author wrote, he found it necessary, in order to make the +story understood, to explain the terms in which these questions and +answers are spoken; and he does this in the 9th verse, where he says, +“Before-time in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he +spake, Come let us go to the seer; for he that is now called a prophet, +was before-time called a seer.” This proves, as I have before said, +that this story of Saul, Samuel, and the asses, was an ancient story at +the time the book of Samuel was written, and consequently that Samuel +did not write it, and that the book is without authenticity. + +But if we go further into those books the evidence is still more +positive that Samuel is not the writer of them; for they relate things +that did not happen till several years after the death of Samuel. +Samuel died before Saul; for i Samuel, xxviii. tells, that Saul and the +witch of Endor conjured Samuel up after he was dead; yet the history of +matters contained in those books is extended through the remaining part +of Saul’s life, and to the latter end of the life of David, who +succeeded Saul. The account of the death and burial of Samuel (a thing +which he could not write himself) is related in i Samuel xxv.; and the +chronology affixed to this chapter makes this to be B.C. 1060; yet the +history of this first book is brought down to B.C. 1056, that is, to +the death of Saul, which was not till four years after the death of +Samuel. + +The second book of Samuel begins with an account of things that did not +happen till four years after Samuel was dead; for it begins with the +reign of David, who succeeded Saul, and it goes on to the end of +David’s reign, which was forty-three years after the death of Samuel; +and, therefore, the books are in themselves positive evidence that they +were not written by Samuel. + +I have now gone through all the books in the first part of the Bible, +to which the names of persons are affixed, as being the authors of +those books, and which the church, styling itself the Christian church, +have imposed upon the world as the writings of Moses, Joshua and +Samuel; and I have detected and proved the falsehood of this +imposition.—And now ye priests, of every description, who have preached +and written against the former part of the ‘Age of Reason,’ what have +ye to say? Will ye with all this mass of evidence against you, and +staring you in the face, still have the assurance to march into your +pulpits, and continue to impose these books on your congregations, as +the works of inspired penmen and the word of God? when it is as evident +as demonstration can make truth appear, that the persons who ye say are +the authors, are not the authors, and that ye know not who the authors +are. What shadow of pretence have ye now to produce for continuing the +blasphemous fraud? What have ye still to offer against the pure and +moral religion of deism, in support of your system of falsehood, +idolatry, and pretended revelation? Had the cruel and murdering orders, +with which the Bible is filled, and the numberless torturing executions +of men, women, and children, in consequence of those orders, been +ascribed to some friend, whose memory you revered, you would have +glowed with satisfaction at detecting the falsehood of the charge, and +gloried in defending his injured fame. It is because ye are sunk in the +cruelty of superstition, or feel no interest in the honour of your +Creator, that ye listen to the horrid tales of the Bible, or hear them +with callous indifference. The evidence I have produced, and shall +still produce in the course of this work, to prove that the Bible is +without authority, will, whilst it wounds the stubbornness of a priest, +relieve and tranquillize the minds of millions: it will free them from +all those hard thoughts of the Almighty which priestcraft and the Bible +had infused into their minds, and which stood in everlasting opposition +to all their ideas of his moral justice and benevolence. + +I come now to the two books of Kings, and the two books of +Chronicles.—Those books are altogether historical, and are chiefly +confined to the lives and actions of the Jewish kings, who in general +were a parcel of rascals: but these are matters with which we have no +more concern than we have with the Roman emperors, or Homer’s account +of the Trojan war. Besides which, as those books are anonymous, and as +we know nothing of the writer, or of his character, it is impossible +for us to know what degree of credit to give to the matters related +therein. Like all other ancient histories, they appear to be a jumble +of fable and of fact, and of probable and of improbable things, but +which distance of time and place, and change of circumstances in the +world, have rendered obsolete and uninteresting. + +The chief use I shall make of those books will be that of comparing +them with each other, and with other parts of the Bible, to show the +confusion, contradiction, and cruelty in this pretended word of God. + +The first book of Kings begins with the reign of Solomon, which, +according to the Bible chronology, was B.C. 1015; and the second book +ends B.C. 588, being a little after the reign of Zedekiah, whom +Nebuchadnezzar, after taking Jerusalem and conquering the Jews, carried +captive to Babylon. The two books include a space of 427 years. + +The two books of Chronicles are an history of the same times, and in +general of the same persons, by another author; for it would be absurd +to suppose that the same author wrote the history twice over. The first +book of Chronicles (after giving the genealogy from Adam to Saul, which +takes up the first nine chapters) begins with the reign of David; and +the last book ends, as in the last book of Kings, soon, after the reign +of Zedekiah, about B.C. 588. The last two verses of the last chapter +bring the history 52 years more forward, that is, to 536. But these +verses do not belong to the book, as I shall show when I come to speak +of the book of Ezra. + +The two books of Kings, besides the history of Saul, David, and +Solomon, who reigned over all Israel, contain an abstract of the lives +of seventeen kings, and one queen, who are stiled kings of Judah; and +of nineteen, who are stiled kings of Israel; for the Jewish nation, +immediately on the death of Solomon, split into two parties, who chose +separate kings, and who carried on most rancorous wars against each +other. + +These two books are little more than a history of assassinations, +treachery, and wars. The cruelties that the Jews had accustomed +themselves to practise on the Canaanites, whose country they had +savagely invaded, under a pretended gift from God, they afterwards +practised as furiously on each other. Scarcely half their kings died a +natural death, and in some instances whole families were destroyed to +secure possession to the successor, who, after a few years, and +sometimes only a few months, or less, shared the same fate. In 2 Kings +x., an account is given of two baskets full of children’s heads, +seventy in number, being exposed at the entrance of the city; they were +the children of Ahab, and were murdered by the orders of Jehu, whom +Elisha, the pretended man of God, had anointed to be king over Israel, +on purpose to commit this bloody deed, and assassinate his predecessor. +And in the account of the reign of Menahem, one of the kings of Israel +who had murdered Shallum, who had reigned but one month, it is said, 2 +Kings xv. 16, that Menahem smote the city of Tiphsah, because they +opened not the city to him, and all the women therein that were with +child he ripped up. + +Could we permit ourselves to suppose that the Almighty would +distinguish any nation of people by the name of his chosen people, we +must suppose that people to have been an example to all the rest of the +world of the purest piety and humanity, and not such a nation of +ruffians and cut-throats as the ancient Jews were,—a people who, +corrupted by and copying after such monsters and imposters as Moses and +Aaron, Joshua, Samuel, and David, had distinguished themselves above +all others on the face of the known earth for barbarity and wickedness. +If we will not stubbornly shut our eyes and steel our hearts it is +impossible not to see, in spite of all that long-established +superstition imposes upon the mind, that the flattering appellation of +his chosen people is no other than a LIE which the priests and leaders +of the Jews had invented to cover the baseness of their own characters; +and which Christian priests sometimes as corrupt, and often as cruel, +have professed to believe. + +The two books of Chronicles are a repetition of the same crimes; but +the history is broken in several places, by the author leaving out the +reign of some of their kings; and in this, as well as in that of Kings, +there is such a frequent transition from kings of Judah to kings of +Israel, and from kings of Israel to kings of Judah, that the narrative +is obscure in the reading. In the same book the history sometimes +contradicts itself: for example, in 2 Kings, i. 17, we are told, but in +rather ambiguous terms, that after the death of Ahaziah, king of +Israel, Jehoram, or Joram, (who was of the house of Ahab), reigned in +his stead in the second Year of Jehoram, or Joram, son of Jehoshaphat, +king of Judah; and in viii. 16, of the same book, it is said, “And in +the fifth year of Joram, the son of Ahab, king of Israel, Jehoshaphat +being then king of Judah, Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat king of +judah, began to reign.” That is, one chapter says Joram of Judah began +to reign in the second year of Joram of Israel; and the other chapter +says, that Joram of Israel began to reign in the fifth year of Joram of +Judah. + +Several of the most extraordinary matters related in one history, as +having happened during the reign of such or such of their kings, are +not to be found in the other, in relating the reign of the same king: +for example, the two first rival kings, after the death of Solomon, +were Rehoboam and Jeroboam; and in i Kings xii. and xiii. an account is +given of Jeroboam making an offering of burnt incense, and that a man, +who is there called a man of God, cried out against the altar (xiii. +2): “O altar, altar! thus saith the Lord: Behold, a child shall be born +unto the house of David, Josiah by name, and upon thee shall he offer +the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men’s +bones shall be burned upon thee.” Verse 4: “And it came to pass, when +king Jeroboam heard the saying of the man of God, which had cried +against the altar in Bethel, that he put forth his hand from the altar, +saying, Lay hold on him; and his hand which he put out against him +dried up so that he could not pull it again to him.” + +One would think that such an extraordinary case as this, (which is +spoken of as a judgement,) happening to the chief of one of the +parties, and that at the first moment of the separation of the +Israelites into two nations, would, if it,. had been true, have been +recorded in both histories. But though men, in later times, have +believed all that the prophets have said unto them, it does appear that +those prophets, or historians, disbelieved each other: they knew each +other too well. + +A long account also is given in Kings about Elijah. It runs through +several chapters, and concludes with telling, 2 Kings ii. 11, “And it +came to pass, as they (Elijah and Elisha) still went on, and talked, +that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire, and +parted them both asunder, and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into +heaven.” Hum! this the author of Chronicles, miraculous as the story +is, makes no mention of, though he mentions Elijah by name; neither +does he say anything of the story related in the second chapter of the +same book of Kings, of a parcel of children calling Elisha bald head; +and that this man of God (ver. 24) “turned back, and looked upon them, +and cursed them in the name of the Lord; and there came forth two +she-bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.” He +also passes over in silence the story told, 2 Kings xiii., that when +they were burying a man in the sepulchre where Elisha had been buried, +it happened that the dead man, as they were letting him down, (ver. 21) +“touched the bones of Elisha, and he (the dead man) revived, and stood +up on his feet.” The story does not tell us whether they buried the +man, notwithstanding he revived and stood upon his feet, or drew him up +again. Upon all these stories the writer of the Chronicles is as silent +as any writer of the present day, who did not chose to be accused of +lying, or at least of romancing, would be about stories of the same +kind. + +But, however these two historians may differ from each other with +respect to the tales related by either, they are silent alike with +respect to those men styled prophets whose writings fill up the latter +part of the Bible. Isaiah, who lived in the time of Hezekiab, is +mentioned in Kings, and again in Chronicles, when these histories are +speaking of that reign; but except in one or two instances at most, and +those very slightly, none of the rest are so much as spoken of, or even +their existence hinted at; though, according to the Bible chronology, +they lived within the time those histories were written; and some of +them long before. If those prophets, as they are called, were men of +such importance in their day, as the compilers of the Bible, and +priests and commentators have since represented them to be, how can it +be accounted for that not one of those histories should say anything +about them? + +The history in the books of Kings and of Chronicles is brought forward, +as I have already said, to the year B.C. 588; it will, therefore, be +proper to examine which of these prophets lived before that period. + +Here follows a table of all the prophets, with the times in which they +lived before Christ, according to the chronology affixed to the first +chapter of each of the books of the prophets; and also of the number of +years they lived before the books of Kings and Chronicles were written: + +TABLE of the Prophets, with the time in which they lived before Christ, +and also before the books of Kings and Chronicles were written: + + + Years Years before + NAMES. before Kings and Observations. + Christ. Chronicles. + + Isaiah............... 760 172 mentioned. + + + (mentioned only in + Jeremiah............. 629 41 the last [two] chapters + of Chronicles. + + Ezekiel.............. 595 7 not mentioned. + + Daniel............... 607 19 not mentioned. + + Hosea................ 785 97 not mentioned. + + Joel................. 800 212 not mentioned. + + Amos................. 789 199 not mentioned. + + Obadiah.............. 789 199 not mentioned. + + Jonah................ 862 274 see the note. + + Micah................ 750 162 not mentioned. + + Nahum................ 713 125 not mentioned. + + Habakkuk............. 620 38 not mentioned. + + Zepbaniah............ 630 42 not mentioned. + + +Haggai Zechariah all three after the year 588 Medachi [NOTE In 2 Kings +xiv. 25, the name of Jonah is mentioned on account of the restoration +of a tract of land by Jeroboam; but nothing further is said of him, nor +is any allusion made to the book of Jonah, nor to his expedition to +Nineveh, nor to his encounter with the whale.—Author.] + +This table is either not very honourable for the Bible historians, or +not very honourable for the Bible prophets; and I leave to priests and +commentators, who are very learned in little things, to settle the +point of etiquette between the two; and to assign a reason, why the +authors of Kings and of Chronicles have treated those prophets, whom, +in the former part of the ‘Age of Reason,’ I have considered as poets, +with as much degrading silence as any historian of the present day +would treat Peter Pindar. + +I have one more observation to make on the book of Chronicles; after +which I shall pass on to review the remaining books of the Bible. + +In my observations on the book of Genesis, I have quoted a passage from +xxxvi. 31, which evidently refers to a time, after that kings began to +reign over the children of Israel; and I have shown that as this verse +is verbatim the same as in 1 Chronicles i. 43, where it stands +consistently with the order of history, which in Genesis it does not, +that the verse in Genesis, and a great part of the 36th chapter, have +been taken from Chronicles; and that the book of Genesis, though it is +placed first in the Bible, and ascribed to Moses, has been manufactured +by some unknown person, after the book of Chronicles was written, which +was not until at least eight hundred and sixty years after the time of +Moses. + +The evidence I proceed by to substantiate this, is regular, and has in +it but two stages. First, as I have already stated, that the passage in +Genesis refers itself for time to Chronicles; secondly, that the book +of Chronicles, to which this passage refers itself, was not begun to be +written until at least eight hundred and sixty years after the time of +Moses. To prove this, we have only to look into 1 Chronicles iii. 15, +where the writer, in giving the genealogy of the descendants of David, +mentions Zedekiah; and it was in the time of Zedekiah that +Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem, B.C. 588, and consequently more +than 860 years after Moses. Those who have superstitiously boasted of +the antiquity of the Bible, and particularly of the books ascribed to +Moses, have done it without examination, and without any other +authority than that of one credulous man telling it to another: for, so +far as historical and chronological evidence applies, the very first +book in the Bible is not so ancient as the book of Homer, by more than +three hundred years, and is about the same age with Æsop’s Fables. + +I am not contending for the morality of Homer; on the contrary, I think +it a book of false glory, and tending to inspire immoral and +mischievous notions of honour; and with respect to Æsop, though the +moral is in general just, the fable is often cruel; and the cruelty of +the fable does more injury to the heart, especially in a child, than +the moral does good to the judgment. + +Having now dismissed Kings and Chronicles, I come to the next in +course, the book of Ezra. + +As one proof, among others I shall produce to shew the disorder in +which this pretended word of God, the Bible, has been put together, and +the uncertainty of who the authors were, we have only to look at the +first three verses in Ezra, and the last two in 2 Chronicles; for by +what kind of cutting and shuffling has it been that the first three +verses in Ezra should be the last two verses in 2 Chronicles, or that +the last two in 2 Chronicles should be the first three in Ezra? Either +the authors did not know their own works or the compilers did not know +the authors. + +Last Two Verses of 2 Chronicles. + +Ver. 22. Now in the first year of Cyrus, King of Persia, that the word +of the Lord, spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah, might be accomplished, +the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, that he made a +proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, +saying. + +earth hath the Lord God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to +build him an house in Jerusalem which is in Judah. Who is there among +you of all his people? the Lord his God be with him, and let him go up. +*** + +First Three Verses of Ezra. + +Ver. 1. Now in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, that the word +of the Lord, by the mouth of Jeremiah, might be fulfilled, the Lord +stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, that he made a +proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, +saying. + +2. Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given +me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him +an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. + +3. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and +let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of +the Lord God of Israel (he is the God) which is in Jerusalem. + +*** The last verse in Chronicles is broken abruptly, and ends in the +middle of the phrase with the word ‘up’ without signifying to what +place. This abrupt break, and the appearance of the same verses in +different books, show as I have already said, the disorder and +ignorance in which the Bible has been put together, and that the +compilers of it had no authority for what they were doing, nor we any +authority for believing what they have done. [NOTE I observed, as I +passed along, several broken and senseless passages in the Bible, +without thinking them of consequence enough to be introduced in the +body of the work; such as that, 1 Samuel xiii. 1, where it is said, +“Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, +Saul chose him three thousand men,” &c. The first part of the verse, +that Saul reigned one year has no sense, since it does not tell us what +Saul did, nor say any thing of what happened at the end of that one +year; and it is, besides, mere absurdity to say he reigned one year, +when the very next phrase says he had reigned two for if he had reigned +two, it was impossible not to have reigned one. + +Another instance occurs in Joshua v. where the writer tells us a story +of an angel (for such the table of contents at the head of the chapter +calls him) appearing unto Joshua; and the story ends abruptly, and +without any conclusion. The story is as follows:—Ver. 13. “And it came +to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and +looked, and behold there stood a man over against him with his sword +drawn in his hand; and Joshua went unto him and said unto him, Art thou +for us, or for our adversaries?” Verse 14, “And he said, Nay; but as +captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his +face to the earth, and did worship and said unto him, What saith my +Lord unto his servant?” Verse 15, “And the captain of the Lord’s host +said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place +whereon thou standeth is holy. And Joshua did so.”—And what then? +nothing: for here the story ends, and the chapter too. + +Either this story is broken off in the middle, or it is a story told by +some Jewish humourist in ridicule of Joshua’s pretended mission from +God, and the compilers of the Bible, not perceiving the design of the +story, have told it as a serious matter. As a story of humour and +ridicule it has a great deal of point; for it pompously introduces an +angel in the figure of a man, with a drawn sword in his hand, before +whom Joshua falls on his face to the earth, and worships (which is +contrary to their second commandment;) and then, this most important +embassy from heaven ends in telling Joshua to pull off his shoe. It +might as well have told him to pull up his breeches. + +It is certain, however, that the Jews did not credit every thing their +leaders told them, as appears from the cavalier manner in which they +speak of Moses, when he was gone into the mount. As for this Moses, say +they, we wot not what is become of him. Exod. xxxii. 1.—Author. + +The only thing that has any appearance of certainty in the book of Ezra +is the time in which it was written, which was immediately after the +return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity, about B.C. 536. Ezra +(who, according to the Jewish commentators, is the same person as is +called Esdras in the Apocrypha) was one of the persons who returned, +and who, it is probable, wrote the account of that affair. Nebemiah, +whose book follows next to Ezra, was another of the returned persons; +and who, it is also probable, wrote the account of the same affair, in +the book that bears his name. But those accounts are nothing to us, nor +to any other person, unless it be to the Jews, as a part of the history +of their nation; and there is just as much of the word of God in those +books as there is in any of the histories of France, or Rapin’s history +of England, or the history of any other country. + +But even in matters of historical record, neither of those writers are +to be depended upon. In Ezra ii., the writer gives a list of the tribes +and families, and of the precise number of souls of each, that returned +from Babylon to Jerusalem; and this enrolment of the persons so +returned appears to have been one of the principal objects for writing +the book; but in this there is an error that destroys the intention of +the undertaking. + +The writer begins his enrolment in the following manner (ii. 3): “The +children of Parosh, two thousand one hundred seventy and four.” Ver. 4, +“The children of Shephatiah, three hundred seventy and two.” And in +this manner he proceeds through all the families; and in the 64th +verse, he makes a total, and says, the whole congregation together was +forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore. + +But whoever will take the trouble of casting up the several +particulars, will find that the total is but 29,818; so that the error +is 12,542. What certainty then can there be in the Bible for any thing? + +[Here Mr. Paine includes the long list of numbers from the Bible of all +the children listed and the total thereof. This can be had directly +from the Bible.] + +Nehemiah, in like manner, gives a list of the returned families, and of +the number of each family. He begins as in Ezra, by saying (vii. 8): +“The children of Parosh, two thousand three hundred and seventy-two;” +and so on through all the families. (The list differs in several of the +particulars from that of Ezra.) In ver. 66, Nehemiah makes a total, and +says, as Ezra had said, “The whole congregation together was forty and +two thousand three hundred and threescore.” But the particulars of this +list make a total but of 31,089, so that the error here is 11,271. +These writers may do well enough for Bible-makers, but not for any +thing where truth and exactness is necessary. + +The next book in course is the book of Esther. If Madam Esther thought +it any honour to offer herself as a kept mistress to Ahasuerus, or as a +rival to Queen Vashti, who had refused to come to a drunken king in the +midst of a drunken company, to be made a show of, (for the account +says, they had been drinking seven days, and were merry,) let Esther +and Mordecai look to that, it is no business of ours, at least it is +none of mine; besides which, the story has a great deal the appearance +of being fabulous, and is also anonymous. I pass on to the book of Job. + +The book of Job differs in character from all the books we have +hitherto passed over. Treachery and murder make no part of this book; +it is the meditations of a mind strongly impressed with the +vicissitudes of human life, and by turns sinking under, and struggling +against the pressure. It is a highly wrought composition, between +willing submission and involuntary discontent; and shows man, as he +sometimes is, more disposed to be resigned than he is capable of being. +Patience has but a small share in the character of the person of whom +the book treats; on the contrary, his grief is often impetuous; but he +still endeavours to keep a guard upon it, and seems determined, in the +midst of accumulating ills, to impose upon himself the hard duty of +contentment. + +I have spoken in a respectful manner of the book of Job in the former +part of the ‘Age of Reason,’ but without knowing at that time what I +have learned since; which is, that from all the evidence that can be +collected, the book of Job does not belong to the Bible. + +I have seen the opinion of two Hebrew commentators, Abenezra and +Spinoza, upon this subject; they both say that the book of Job carries +no internal evidence of being an Hebrew book; that the genius of the +composition, and the drama of the piece, are not Hebrew; that it has +been translated from another language into Hebrew, and that the author +of the book was a Gentile; that the character represented under the +name of Satan (which is the first and only time this name is mentioned +in the Bible) [In a later work Paine notes that in “the Bible” (by +which he always means the Old Testament alone) the word Satan occurs +also in 1 Chron. xxi. 1, and remarks that the action there ascribed to +Satan is in 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, attributed to Jehovah (“Essay on Dreams”). +In these places, however, and in Ps. cix. 6, Satan means “adversary,” +and is so translated (A.S. version) in 2 Sam. xix. 22, and 1 Kings v. +4, xi. 25. As a proper name, with the article, Satan appears in the Old +Testament only in Job and in Zech. iii. 1, 2. But the authenticity of +the passage in Zechariah has been questioned, and it may be that in +finding the proper name of Satan in Job alone, Paine was following some +opinion met with in one of the authorities whose comments are condensed +in his paragraph.—Editor.] does not correspond to any Hebrew idea; and +that the two convocations which the Deity is supposed to have made of +those whom the poem calls sons of God, and the familiarity which this +supposed Satan is stated to have with the Deity, are in the same case. + +It may also be observed, that the book shows itself to be the +production of a mind cultivated in science, which the Jews, so far from +being famous for, were very ignorant of. The allusions to objects of +natural philosophy are frequent and strong, and are of a different cast +to any thing in the books known to be Hebrew. The astronomical names, +Pleiades, Orion, and Arcturus, are Greek and not Hebrew names, and it +does not appear from any thing that is to be found in the Bible that +the Jews knew any thing of astronomy, or that they studied it, they had +no translation of those names into their own language, but adopted the +names as they found them in the poem. [Paine’s Jewish critic, David +Levi, fastened on this slip (“Defence of the Old Testament,” 1797, p. +152). In the original the names are Ash (Arcturus), Kesil’ (Orion), +Kimah’ (Pleiades), though the identifications of the constellations in +the A.S.V. have been questioned.—Editor.] + +That the Jews did translate the literary productions of the Gentile +nations into the Hebrew language, and mix them with their own, is not a +matter of doubt; Proverbs xxxi. i, is an evidence of this: it is there +said, The word of king Lemuel, the prophecy which his mother taught +him. This verse stands as a preface to the proverbs that follow, and +which are not the proverbs of Solomon, but of Lemuel; and this Lemuel +was not one of the kings of Israel, nor of Judah, but of some other +country, and consequently a Gentile. The Jews however have adopted his +proverbs; and as they cannot give any account who the author of the +book of Job was, nor how they came by the book, and as it differs in +character from the Hebrew writings, and stands totally unconnected with +every other book and chapter in the Bible before it and after it, it +has all the circumstantial evidence of being originally a book of the +Gentiles. [The prayer known by the name of Agur’s Prayer, in Proverbs +xxx.,—immediately preceding the proverbs of Lemuel,—and which is the +only sensible, well-conceived, and well-expressed prayer in the Bible, +has much the appearance of being a prayer taken from the Gentiles. The +name of Agur occurs on no other occasion than this; and he is +introduced, together with the prayer ascribed to him, in the same +manner, and nearly in the same words, that Lemuel and his proverbs are +introduced in the chapter that follows. The first verse says, “The +words of Agur, the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy:” here the word +prophecy is used with the same application it has in the following +chapter of Lemuel, unconnected with anything of prediction. The prayer +of Agur is in the 8th and 9th verses, “Remove far from me vanity and +lies; give me neither riches nor poverty, but feed me with food +convenient for me; lest I be full and deny thee and say, Who is the +Lord? or lest I be poor and steal, and take the name of my God in +vain.” This has not any of the marks of being a Jewish prayer, for the +Jews never prayed but when they were in trouble, and never for anything +but victory, vengeance, or riches.—Author. (Prov. xxx. 1, and xxxi. 1) +the word “prophecy” in these verses is translated “oracle” or “burden” +(marg.) in the revised version.—The prayer of Agur was quoted by Paine +in his plea for the officers of Excise, 1772.—Editor.] + +The Bible-makers, and those regulators of time, the Bible +chronologists, appear to have been at a loss where to place and how to +dispose of the book of Job; for it contains no one historical +circumstance, nor allusion to any, that might serve to determine its +place in the Bible. But it would not have answered the purpose of these +men to have informed the world of their ignorance; and, therefore, they +have affixed it to the aera of B.C. 1520, which is during the time the +Israelites were in Egypt, and for which they have just as much +authority and no more than I should have for saying it was a thousand +years before that period. The probability however is, that it is older +than any book in the Bible; and it is the only one that can be read +without indignation or disgust. + +We know nothing of what the ancient Gentile world (as it is called) was +before the time of the Jews, whose practice has been to calumniate and +blacken the character of all other nations; and it is from the Jewish +accounts that we have learned to call them heathens. But, as far as we +know to the contrary, they were a just and moral people, and not +addicted, like the Jews, to cruelty and revenge, but of whose +profession of faith we are unacquainted. It appears to have been their +custom to personify both virtue and vice by statues and images, as is +done now-a-days both by statuary and by painting; but it does not +follow from this that they worshipped them any more than we do.—I pass +on to the book of, + +Psalms, of which it is not necessary to make much observation. Some of +them are moral, and others are very revengeful; and the greater part +relates to certain local circumstances of the Jewish nation at the time +they were written, with which we have nothing to do. It is, however, an +error or an imposition to call them the Psalms of David; they are a +collection, as song-books are now-a-days, from different song-writers, +who lived at different times. The 137th Psalm could not have been +written till more than 400 years after the time of David, because it is +written in commemoration of an event, the captivity of the Jews in +Babylon, which did not happen till that distance of time. “By the +rivers of Babylon we sat down; yea, we wept when we remembered Zion. We +hanged our harps upon the willows, in the midst thereof; for there they +that carried us away captive required of us a song, saying, sing us one +of the songs of Zion.” As a man would say to an American, or to a +Frenchman, or to an Englishman, sing us one of your American songs, or +your French songs, or your English songs. This remark, with respect to +the time this psalm was written, is of no other use than to show (among +others already mentioned) the general imposition the world has been +under with respect to the authors of the Bible. No regard has been paid +to time, place, and circumstance; and the names of persons have been +affixed to the several books which it was as impossible they should +write, as that a man should walk in procession at his own funeral. + +The Book of Proverbs. These, like the Psalms, are a collection, and +that from authors belonging to other nations than those of the Jewish +nation, as I have shewn in the observations upon the book of Job; +besides which, some of the Proverbs ascribed to Solomon did not appear +till two hundred and fifty years after the death of Solomon; for it is +said in xxv. i, “These are also proverbs of Solomon which the men of +Hezekiah, king of Judah, copied out.” It was two hundred and fifty +years from the time of Solomon to the time of Hezekiah. When a man is +famous and his name is abroad he is made the putative father of things +he never said or did; and this, most probably, has been the case with +Solomon. It appears to have been the fashion of that day to make +proverbs, as it is now to make jest-books, and father them upon those +who never saw them. [A “Tom Paine’s Jest Book” had appeared in London +with little or nothing of Paine in it.—Editor.] + +The book of Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher, is also ascribed to Solomon, +and that with much reason, if not with truth. It is written as the +solitary reflections of a worn-out debauchee, such as Solomon was, who +looking back on scenes he can no longer enjoy, cries out All is Vanity! +A great deal of the metaphor and of the sentiment is obscure, most +probably by translation; but enough is left to show they were strongly +pointed in the original. [Those that look out of the window shall be +darkened, is an obscure figure in translation for loss of +sight.—Author.] From what is transmitted to us of the character of +Solomon, he was witty, ostentatious, dissolute, and at last melancholy. +He lived fast, and died, tired of the world, at the age of fifty-eight +years. + +Seven hundred wives, and three hundred concubines, are worse than none; +and, however it may carry with it the appearance of heightened +enjoyment, it defeats all the felicity of affection, by leaving it no +point to fix upon; divided love is never happy. This was the case with +Solomon; and if he could not, with all his pretensions to wisdom, +discover it beforehand, he merited, unpitied, the mortification he +afterwards endured. In this point of view, his preaching is +unnecessary, because, to know the consequences, it is only necessary to +know the cause. Seven hundred wives, and three hundred concubines would +have stood in place of the whole book. It was needless after this to +say that all was vanity and vexation of spirit; for it is impossible to +derive happiness from the company of those whom we deprive of +happiness. + +To be happy in old age it is necessary that we accustom ourselves to +objects that can accompany the mind all the way through life, and that +we take the rest as good in their day. The mere man of pleasure is +miserable in old age; and the mere drudge in business is but little +better: whereas, natural philosophy, mathematical and mechanical +science, are a continual source of tranquil pleasure, and in spite of +the gloomy dogmas of priests, and of superstition, the study of those +things is the study of the true theology; it teaches man to know and to +admire the Creator, for the principles of science are in the creation, +and are unchangeable, and of divine origin. + +Those who knew Benjamin Franklin will recollect, that his mind was ever +young; his temper ever serene; science, that never grows grey, was +always his mistress. He was never without an object; for when we cease +to have an object we become like an invalid in an hospital waiting for +death. + +Solomon’s Songs, amorous and foolish enough, but which wrinkled +fanaticism has called divine.—The compilers of the Bible have placed +these songs after the book of Ecclesiastes; and the chronologists have +affixed to them the aera of B.C. 1014, at which time Solomon, according +to the same chronology, was nineteen years of age, and was then forming +his seraglio of wives and concubines. The Bible-makers and the +chronologists should have managed this matter a little better, and +either have said nothing about the time, or chosen a time less +inconsistent with the supposed divinity of those songs; for Solomon was +then in the honey-moon of one thousand debaucheries. + +It should also have occurred to them, that as he wrote, if he did +write, the book of Ecclesiastes, long after these songs, and in which +he exclaims that all is vanity and vexation of spirit, that he included +those songs in that description. This is the more probable, because he +says, or somebody for him, Ecclesiastes ii. 8, I got me men-singers, +and women-singers [most probably to sing those songs], and musical +instruments of all sorts; and behold (Ver. ii), “all was vanity and +vexation of spirit.” The compilers however have done their work but by +halves; for as they have given us the songs they should have given us +the tunes, that we might sing them. + +The books called the books of the Prophets fill up all the remaining +part of the Bible; they are sixteen in number, beginning with Isaiah +and ending with Malachi, of which I have given a list in the +observations upon Chronicles. Of these sixteen prophets, all of whom +except the last three lived within the time the books of Kings and +Chronicles were written, two only, Isaiah and Jeremiah, are mentioned +in the history of those books. I shall begin with those two, reserving, +what I have to say on the general character of the men called prophets +to another part of the work. + +Whoever will take the trouble of reading the book ascribed to Isaiah, +will find it one of the most wild and disorderly compositions ever put +together; it has neither beginning, middle, nor end; and, except a +short historical part, and a few sketches of history in the first two +or three chapters, is one continued incoherent, bombastical rant, full +of extravagant metaphor, without application, and destitute of meaning; +a school-boy would scarcely have been excusable for writing such stuff; +it is (at least in translation) that kind of composition and false +taste that is properly called prose run mad. + +The historical part begins at chapter xxxvi., and is continued to the +end of chapter xxxix. It relates some matters that are said to have +passed during the reign of Hezekiah, king of Judah, at which time +Isaiah lived. This fragment of history begins and ends abruptly; it has +not the least connection with the chapter that precedes it, nor with +that which follows it, nor with any other in the book. It is probable +that Isaiah wrote this fragment himself, because he was an actor in the +circumstances it treats of; but except this part there are scarcely two +chapters that have any connection with each other. One is entitled, at +the beginning of the first verse, the burden of Babylon; another, the +burden of Moab; another, the burden of Damascus; another, the burden of +Egypt; another, the burden of the Desert of the Sea; another, the +burden of the Valley of Vision: as you would say the story of the +Knight of the Burning Mountain, the story of Cinderella, or the glassen +slipper, the story of the Sleeping Beauty in the Wood, etc., etc. + +I have already shown, in the instance of the last two verses of 2 +Chronicles, and the first three in Ezra, that the compilers of the +Bible mixed and confounded the writings of different authors with each +other; which alone, were there no other cause, is sufficient to destroy +the authenticity of an compilation, because it is more than presumptive +evidence that the compilers are ignorant who the authors were. A very +glaring instance of this occurs in the book ascribed to Isaiah: the +latter part of the 44th chapter, and the beginning of the 45th, so far +from having been written by Isaiah, could only have been written by +some person who lived at least an hundred and fifty years after Isaiah +was dead. + +These chapters are a compliment to Cyrus, who permitted the Jews to +return to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity, to rebuild Jerusalem +and the temple, as is stated in Ezra. The last verse of the 44th +chapter, and the beginning of the 45th [Isaiah] are in the following +words: “That saith of Cyrus, he is my shepherd, and shall perform all +my pleasure; even saying to Jerusalem, thou shalt be built; and to the +temple thy foundations shall be laid: thus saith the Lord to his +enointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden to subdue nations +before him, and I will loose the loins of kings to open before him the +two-leaved gates, and the gates shall not be shut; I will go before +thee,” etc. + +What audacity of church and priestly ignorance it is to impose this +book upon the world as the writing of Isaiah, when Isaiah, according to +their own chronology, died soon after the death of Hezekiah, which was +B.C. 698; and the decree of Cyrus, in favour of the Jews returning to +Jerusalem, was, according to the same chronology, B.C. 536; which is a +distance of time between the two of 162 years. I do not suppose that +the compilers of the Bible made these books, but rather that they +picked up some loose, anonymous essays, and put them together under the +names of such authors as best suited their purpose. They have +encouraged the imposition, which is next to inventing it; for it was +impossible but they must have observed it. + +When we see the studied craft of the scripture-makers, in making every +part of this romantic book of school-boy’s eloquence bend to the +monstrous idea of a Son of God, begotten by a ghost on the body of a +virgin, there is no imposition we are not justified in suspecting them +of. Every phrase and circumstance are marked with the barbarous hand of +superstitious torture, and forced into meanings it was impossible they +could have. The head of every chapter, and the top of every page, are +blazoned with the names of Christ and the Church, that the unwary +reader might suck in the error before he began to read. + +Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son (Isa. vii. I4), has been +interpreted to mean the person called Jesus Christ, and his mother +Mary, and has been echoed through christendom for more than a thousand +years; and such has been the rage of this opinion, that scarcely a spot +in it but has been stained with blood and marked with desolation in +consequence of it. Though it is not my intention to enter into +controversy on subjects of this kind, but to confine myself to show +that the Bible is spurious,—and thus, by taking away the foundation, to +overthrow at once the whole structure of superstition raised thereon,—I +will however stop a moment to expose the fallacious application of this +passage. + +Whether Isaiah was playing a trick with Ahaz, king of Judah, to whom +this passage is spoken, is no business of mine; I mean only to show the +misapplication of the passage, and that it has no more reference to +Christ and his mother, than it has to me and my mother. The story is +simply this: + +The king of Syria and the king of Israel (I have already mentioned that +the Jews were split into two nations, one of which was called Judah, +the capital of which was Jerusalem, and the other Israel) made war +jointly against Ahaz, king of Judah, and marched their armies towards +Jerusalem. Ahaz and his people became alarmed, and the account says +(Is. vii. 2), Their hearts were moved as the trees of the wood are +moved with the wind. + +In this situation of things, Isaiah addresses himself to Ahaz, and +assures him in the name of the Lord (the cant phrase of all the +prophets) that these two kings should not succeed against him; and to +satisfy Ahaz that this should be the case, tells him to ask a sign. +This, the account says, Ahaz declined doing; giving as a reason that he +would not tempt the Lord; upon which Isaiah, who is the speaker, says, +ver. 14, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold a +virgin shall conceive and bear a son;” and the 16th verse says, “And +before this child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, +the land which thou abhorrest or dreadest [meaning Syria and the +kingdom of Israel] shall be forsaken of both her kings.” Here then was +the sign, and the time limited for the completion of the assurance or +promise; namely, before this child shall know to refuse the evil and +choose the good. + +Isaiah having committed himself thus far, it became necessary to him, +in order to avoid the imputation of being a false prophet, and the +consequences thereof, to take measures to make this sign appear. It +certainly was not a difficult thing, in any time of the world, to find +a girl with child, or to make her so; and perhaps Isaiah knew of one +beforehand; for I do not suppose that the prophets of that day were any +more to be trusted than the priests of this: be that, however, as it +may, he says in the next chapter, ver. 2, “And I took unto me faithful +witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of +Jeberechiah, and I went unto the prophetess, and she conceived and bare +a son.” + +Here then is the whole story, foolish as it is, of this child and this +virgin; and it is upon the barefaced perversion of this story that the +book of Matthew, and the impudence and sordid interest of priests in +later times, have founded a theory, which they call the gospel; and +have applied this story to signify the person they call Jesus Christ; +begotten, they say, by a ghost, whom they call holy, on the body of a +woman engaged in marriage, and afterwards married, whom they call a +virgin, seven hundred years after this foolish story was told; a theory +which, speaking for myself, I hesitate not to believe, and to say, is +as fabulous and as false as God is true. [In Is. vii. 14, it is said +that the child should be called Immanuel; but this name was not given +to either of the children, otherwise than as a character, which the +word signifies. That of the prophetess was called Maher-shalalhash-baz, +and that of Mary was called Jesus.—Author.] + +But to show the imposition and falsehood of Isaiah we have only to +attend to the sequel of this story; which, though it is passed over in +silence in the book of Isaiah, is related in 2 Chronicles, xxviii; and +which is, that instead of these two kings failing in their attempt +against Ahaz, king of Judah, as Isaiah had pretended to foretel in the +name of the Lord, they succeeded: Ahaz was defeated and destroyed; an +hundred and twenty thousand of his people were slaughtered; Jerusalem +was plundered, and two hundred thousand women and sons and daughters +carried into captivity. Thus much for this lying prophet and imposter +Isaiah, and the book of falsehoods that bears his name. I pass on to +the book of Jeremiah. This prophet, as he is called, lived in the time +that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, in the reign of Zedekiah, the +last king of Judah; and the suspicion was strong against him that he +was a traitor in the interest of Nebuchadnezzar. Every thing relating +to Jeremiah shows him to have been a man of an equivocal character: in +his metaphor of the potter and the clay, (ch. xviii.) he guards his +prognostications in such a crafty manner as always to leave himself a +door to escape by, in case the event should be contrary to what he had +predicted. In the 7th and 8th verses he makes the Almighty to say, “At +what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a +kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and destroy it, if that nation, +against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent me +of the evil that I thought to do unto them.” Here was a proviso against +one side of the case: now for the other side. Verses 9 and 10, “At what +instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to +build and to plant it, if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my +voice, then I will repent me of the good wherewith I said I would +benefit them.” Here is a proviso against the other side; and, according +to this plan of prophesying, a prophet could never be wrong, however +mistaken the Almighty might be. This sort of absurd subterfuge, and +this manner of speaking of the Almighty, as one would speak of a man, +is consistent with nothing but the stupidity of the Bible. + +As to the authenticity of the book, it is only necessary to read it in +order to decide positively that, though some passages recorded therein +may have been spoken by Jeremiah, he is not the author of the book. The +historical parts, if they can be called by that name, are in the most +confused condition; the same events are several times repeated, and +that in a manner different, and sometimes in contradiction to each +other; and this disorder runs even to the last chapter, where the +history, upon which the greater part of the book has been employed, +begins anew, and ends abruptly. The book has all the appearance of +being a medley of unconnected anecdotes respecting persons and things +of that time, collected together in the same rude manner as if the +various and contradictory accounts that are to be found in a bundle of +newspapers, respecting persons and things of the present day, were put +together without date, order, or explanation. I will give two or three +examples of this kind. + +It appears, from the account of chapter xxxvii. that the army of +Nebuchadnezzer, which is called the army of the Chaldeans, had besieged +Jerusalem some time; and on their hearing that the army of Pharaoh of +Egypt was marching against them, they raised the siege and retreated +for a time. It may here be proper to mention, in order to understand +this confused history, that Nebuchadnezzar had besieged and taken +Jerusalem during the reign of Jehoakim, the redecessor of Zedekiah; and +that it was Nebuchadnezzar who had make Zedekiah king, or rather +viceroy; and that this second siege, of which the book of Jeremiah +treats, was in consequence of the revolt of Zedekiah against +Nebuchadnezzar. This will in some measure account for the suspicion +that affixes itself to Jeremiah of being a traitor, and in the interest +of Nebuchadnezzar,—whom Jeremiah calls, xliii. 10, the servant of God. + +Chapter xxxvii. 11-13, says, “And it came to pass, that, when the army +of the Chaldeans was broken up from Jerusalem, for fear of Pharaoh’s +army, that Jeremiah went forth out of Jerusalem, to go (as this account +states) into the land of Benjamin, to separate himself thence in the +midst of the people; and when he was in the gate of Benjamin a captain +of the ward was there, whose name was Irijah... and he took Jeremiah +the prophet, saying, Thou fallest away to the Chaldeans; then Jeremiah +said, It is false; I fall not away to the Chaldeans.” Jeremiah being +thus stopt and accused, was, after being examined, committed to prison, +on suspicion of being a traitor, where he remained, as is stated in the +last verse of this chapter. + +But the next chapter gives an account of the imprisonment of Jeremiah, +which has no connection with this account, but ascribes his +imprisonment to another circumstance, and for which we must go back to +chapter xxi. It is there stated, ver. 1, that Zedekiah sent Pashur the +son of Malchiah, and Zephaniah the son of Maaseiah the priest, to +Jeremiah, to enquire of him concerning Nebuchadnezzar, whose army was +then before Jerusalem; and Jeremiah said to them, ver. 8, “Thus saith +the Lord, Behold I set before you the way of life, and the way of +death; he that abideth in this city shall die by the sword and by the +famine, and by the pestilence; but he that goeth out and falleth to the +Chaldeans that besiege you, he shall live, and his life shall be unto +him for a prey.” + +This interview and conference breaks off abruptly at the end of the +10th verse of chapter xxi.; and such is the disorder of this book that +we have to pass over sixteen chapters upon various subjects, in order +to come at the continuation and event of this conference; and this +brings us to the first verse of chapter xxxviii., as I have just +mentioned. The chapter opens with saying, “Then Shaphatiah, the son of +Mattan, Gedaliah the son of Pashur, and Jucal the son of Shelemiah, and +Pashur the son of Malchiah, (here are more persons mentioned than in +chapter xxi.) heard the words that Jeremiah spoke unto all the people, +saying, Thus saith the Lord, He that remaineth in this city, shall die +by the sword, by famine, and by the pestilence; but he that goeth forth +to the Chaldeans shall live; for he shall have his life for a prey, and +shall live”; [which are the words of the conference;] therefore, (say +they to Zedekiah,) “We beseech thee, let this man be put to death, for +thus he weakeneth the hands of the men of war that remain in this city, +and the hands of all the people, in speaking such words unto them; for +this man seeketh not the welfare of the people, but the hurt:” and at +the 6th verse it is said, “Then they took Jeremiah, and put him into +the dungeon of Malchiah.” + +These two accounts are different and contradictory. The one ascribes +his imprisonment to his attempt to escape out of the city; the other to +his preaching and prophesying in the city; the one to his being seized +by the guard at the gate; the other to his being accused before +Zedekiah by the conferees. [I observed two chapters in I Samuel (xvi. +and xvii.) that contradict each other with respect to David, and the +manner he became acquainted with Saul; as Jeremiah xxxvii. and xxxviii. +contradict each other with respect to the cause of Jeremiah’s +imprisonment. + +In 1 Samuel, xvi., it is said, that an evil spirit of God troubled +Saul, and that his servants advised him (as a remedy) “to seek out a +man who was a cunning player upon the harp.” And Saul said, ver. 17, +“Provide me now a man that can play well, and bring him to me. Then +answered one of his servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of +Jesse, the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty man, +and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the +Lord is with him; wherefore Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, +Send me David, thy son. And (verse 21) David came to Saul, and stood +before him, and he loved him greatly, and he became his armour-bearer; +and when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, (verse 23) David took +his harp, and played with his hand, and Saul was refreshed, and was +well.” + +But the next chapter (xvii.) gives an account, all different to this, +of the manner that Saul and David became acquainted. Here it is +ascribed to David’s encounter with Goliah, when David was sent by his +father to carry provision to his brethren in the camp. In the 55th +verse of this chapter it is said, “And when Saul saw David go forth +against the Philistine (Goliah) he said to Abner, the captain of the +host, Abner, whose son is this youth? And Abner said, As thy soul +liveth, 0 king, I cannot tell. And the king said, Enquire thou whose +son the stripling is. And as David returned from the slaughter of the +Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul, with the head +of the Philistine in his hand; and Saul said unto him, Whose son art +thou, thou young man? And David answered, I am the son of thy servant, +Jesse, the Betblehemite,” These two accounts belie each other, because +each of them supposes Saul and David not to have known each other +before. This book, the Bible, is too ridiculous for criticism.—Author.] + +In the next chapter (Jer. xxxix.) we have another instance of the +disordered state of this book; for notwithstanding the siege of the +city by Nebuchadnezzar has been the subject of several of the preceding +chapters, particularly xxxvii. and xxxviii., chapter xxxix. begins as +if not a word had been said upon the subject, and as if the reader was +still to be informed of every particular respecting it; for it begins +with saying, ver. 1, “In the ninth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in +the tenth month, came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and all his army, +against Jerusalem, and besieged it,” etc. + +But the instance in the last chapter (lii.) is still more glaring; for +though the story has been told over and over again, this chapter still +supposes the reader not to know anything of it, for it begins by +saying, ver. i, “Zedekiah was one and twenty years old when he began to +reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name +was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah.” (Ver. 4,) “And it +came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, that +Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he and all his army, against +Jerusalem, and pitched against it, and built forts against it,” etc. + +It is not possible that any one man, and more particularly Jeremiah, +could have been the writer of this book. The errors are such as could +not have been committed by any person sitting down to compose a work. +Were I, or any other man, to write in such a disordered manner, no body +would read what was written, and every body would suppose that the +writer was in a state of insanity. The only way, therefore, to account +for the disorder is, that the book is a medley of detached +unauthenticated anecdotes, put together by some stupid book-maker, +under the name of Jeremiah; because many of them refer to him, and to +the circumstances of the times he lived in. + +Of the duplicity, and of the false predictions of Jeremiah, I shall +mention two instances, and then proceed to review the remainder of the +Bible. + +It appears from chapter xxxviii. that when Jeremiah was in prison, +Zedekiah sent for him, and at this interview, which was private, +Jeremiah pressed it strongly on Zedekiah to surrender himself to the +enemy. “If,” says he, (ver. 17,) “thou wilt assuredly go forth unto the +king of Babylon’s princes, then thy soul shall live,” etc. Zedekiah was +apprehensive that what passed at this conference should be known; and +he said to Jeremiah, (ver. 25,) “If the princes [meaning those of +Judah] hear that I have talked with thee, and they come unto thee, and +say unto thee, Declare unto us now what thou hast said unto the king; +hide it not from us, and we will not put thee to death; and also what +the king said unto thee; then thou shalt say unto them, I presented my +supplication before the king that he would not cause me to return to +Jonathan’s house, to die there. Then came all the princes unto +Jeremiah, and asked him, and “he told them according to all the words +the king had commanded.” Thus, this man of God, as he is called, could +tell a lie, or very strongly prevaricate, when he supposed it would +answer his purpose; for certainly he did not go to Zedekiah to make +this supplication, neither did he make it; he went because he was sent +for, and he employed that opportunity to advise Zedekiah to surrender +himself to Nebuchadnezzar. + +In chapter xxxiv. 2-5, is a prophecy of Jeremiah to Zedekiah in these +words: “Thus saith the Lord, Behold I will give this city into the hand +of the king of Babylon, and he will burn it with fire; and thou shalt +not escape out of his hand, but thou shalt surely be taken, and +delivered into his hand; and thine eyes shall behold the eyes of the +king of Babylon, and he shall speak with thee mouth to mouth, and thou +shalt go to Babylon. Yet hear the word of the Lord; O Zedekiah, king, +of Judah, thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not die by the sword, but +thou shalt die in Peace; and with the burnings of thy fathers, the +former kings that were before thee, so shall they burn odours for thee, +and they will lament thee, saying, Ah, Lord! for I have pronounced the +word, saith the Lord.” + +Now, instead of Zedekiah beholding the eyes of the king of Babylon, and +speaking with him mouth to mouth, and dying in peace, and with the +burning of odours, as at the funeral of his fathers, (as Jeremiah had +declared the Lord himself had pronounced,) the reverse, according to +chapter Iii., 10, 11 was the case; it is there said, that the king of +Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes: then he put out the +eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, +and put him in prison till the day of his death. + +What then can we say of these prophets, but that they are impostors and +liars? + +As for Jeremiah, he experienced none of those evils. He was taken into +favour by Nebuchadnezzar, who gave him in charge to the captain of the +guard (xxxix, 12), “Take him (said he) and look well to him, and do him +no harm; but do unto him even as he shall say unto thee.” Jeremiah +joined himself afterwards to Nebuchadnezzar, and went about prophesying +for him against the Egyptians, who had marched to the relief of +Jerusalem while it was besieged. Thus much for another of the lying +prophets, and the book that bears his name. + +I have been the more particular in treating of the books ascribed to +Isaiah and Jeremiah, because those two are spoken of in the books of +Kings and Chronicles, which the others are not. The remainder of the +books ascribed to the men called prophets I shall not trouble myself +much about; but take them collectively into the observations I shall +offer on the character of the men styled prophets. + +In the former part of the ‘Age of Reason,’ I have said that the word +prophet was the Bible-word for poet, and that the flights and metaphors +of Jewish poets have been foolishly erected into what are now called +prophecies. I am sufficiently justified in this opinion, not only +because the books called the prophecies are written in poetical +language, but because there is no word in the Bible, except it be the +word prophet, that describes what we mean by a poet. I have also said, +that the word signified a performer upon musical instruments, of which +I have given some instances; such as that of a company of prophets, +prophesying with psalteries, with tabrets, with pipes, with harps, +etc., and that Saul prophesied with them, 1 Sam. x., 5. It appears from +this passage, and from other parts in the book of Samuel, that the word +prophet was confined to signify poetry and music; for the person who +was supposed to have a visionary insight into concealed things, was not +a prophet but a seer, [I know not what is the Hebrew word that +corresponds to the word seer in English; but I observe it is translated +into French by Le Voyant, from the verb voir to see, and which means +the person who sees, or the seer.—Author.] + +[The Hebrew word for Seer, in 1 Samuel ix., transliterated, is chozeh, +the gazer, it is translated in Is. xlvii. 13, “the +stargazers.”—Editor.] (i Sam, ix. 9;) and it was not till after the +word seer went out of use (which most probably was when Saul banished +those he called wizards) that the profession of the seer, or the art of +seeing, became incorporated into the word prophet. + +According to the modern meaning of the word prophet and prophesying, it +signifies foretelling events to a great distance of time; and it became +necessary to the inventors of the gospel to give it this latitude of +meaning, in order to apply or to stretch what they call the prophecies +of the Old Testament, to the times of the New. But according to the Old +Testament, the prophesying of the seer, and afterwards of the prophet, +so far as the meaning of the word “seer” was incorporated into that of +prophet, had reference only to things of the time then passing, or very +closely connected with it; such as the event of a battle they were +going to engage in, or of a journey, or of any enterprise they were +going to undertake, or of any circumstance then pending, or of any +difficulty they were then in; all of which had immediate reference to +themselves (as in the case already mentioned of Ahaz and Isaiah with +respect to the expression, Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a +son,) and not to any distant future time. It was that kind of +prophesying that corresponds to what we call fortune-telling; such as +casting nativities, predicting riches, fortunate or unfortunate +marriages, conjuring for lost goods, etc.; and it is the fraud of the +Christian church, not that of the Jews, and the ignorance and the +superstition of modern, not that of ancient times, that elevated those +poetical, musical, conjuring, dreaming, strolling gentry, into the rank +they have since had. + +But, besides this general character of all the prophets, they had also +a particular character. They were in parties, and they prophesied for +or against, according to the party they were with; as the poetical and +political writers of the present day write in defence of the party they +associate with against the other. + +After the Jews were divided into two nations, that of Judah and that of +Israel, each party had its prophets, who abused and accused each other +of being false prophets, lying prophets, impostors, etc. + +The prophets of the party of Judah prophesied against the prophets of +the party of Israel; and those of the party of Israel against those of +Judah. This party prophesying showed itself immediately on the +separation under the first two rival kings, Rehoboam and Jeroboam. The +prophet that cursed, or prophesied against the altar that Jeroboam had +built in Bethel, was of the party of Judah, where Rehoboam was king; +and he was way-laid on his return home by a prophet of the party of +Israel, who said unto him (i Kings xiii.) “Art thou the man of God that +came from Judah? and he said, I am.” Then the prophet of the party of +Israel said to him “I am a prophet also, as thou art, [signifying of +Judah,] and an angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, saying, +Bring him back with thee unto thine house, that he may eat bread and +drink water; but (says the 18th verse) he lied unto him.” The event, +however, according to the story, is, that the prophet of Judah never +got back to Judah; for he was found dead on the road by the contrivance +of the prophet of Israel, who no doubt was called a true prophet by his +own party, and the prophet of Judah a lying prophet. + +In 2 Kings, iii., a story is related of prophesying or conjuring that +shews, in several particulars, the character of a prophet. Jehoshaphat +king of Judah, and Joram king of Israel, had for a while ceased their +party animosity, and entered into an alliance; and these two, together +with the king of Edom, engaged in a war against the king of Moab. After +uniting and marching their armies, the story says, they were in great +distress for water, upon which Jehoshaphat said, “Is there not here a +prophet of the Lord, that we may enquire of the Lord by him? and one of +the servants of the king of Israel said here is Elisha. [Elisha was of +the party of Judah.] And Jehoshaphat the king of Judah said, The word +of the Lord is with him.” The story then says, that these three kings +went down to Elisha; and when Elisha [who, as I have said, was a +Judahmite prophet] saw the King of Israel, he said unto him, “What have +I to do with thee, get thee to the prophets of thy father and the +prophets of thy mother. Nay but, said the king of Israel, the Lord hath +called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hands of +the king of Moab,” (meaning because of the distress they were in for +water;) upon which Elisha said, “As the Lord of hosts liveth before +whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of +Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, I would not look towards thee nor see +thee.” Here is all the venom and vulgarity of a party prophet. We are +now to see the performance, or manner of prophesying. + +Ver. 15. “‘Bring me,’ (said Elisha), ‘a minstrel’; and it came to pass, +when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him.” +Here is the farce of the conjurer. Now for the prophecy: “And Elisha +said, [singing most probably to the tune he was playing], Thus saith +the Lord, Make this valley full of ditches;” which was just telling +them what every countryman could have told them without either fiddle +or farce, that the way to get water was to dig for it. + +But as every conjuror is not famous alike for the same thing, so +neither were those prophets; for though all of them, at least those I +have spoken of, were famous for lying, some of them excelled in +cursing. Elisha, whom I have just mentioned, was a chief in this branch +of prophesying; it was he that cursed the forty-two children in the +name of the Lord, whom the two she-bears came and devoured. We are to +suppose that those children were of the party of Israel; but as those +who will curse will lie, there is just as much credit to be given to +this story of Elisha’s two she-bears as there is to that of the Dragon +of Wantley, of whom it is said: + + Poor children three devoured be, + That could not with him grapple; + And at one sup he eat them up, + As a man would eat an apple. + +There was another description of men called prophets, that amused +themselves with dreams and visions; but whether by night or by day we +know not. These, if they were not quite harmless, were but little +mischievous. Of this class are, + +EZEKIEL and DANIEL; and the first question upon these books, as upon +all the others, is, Are they genuine? that is, were they written by +Ezekiel and Daniel? + +Of this there is no proof; but so far as my own opinion goes, I am more +inclined to believe they were, than that they were not. My reasons for +this opinion are as follows: First, Because those books do not contain +internal evidence to prove they were not written by Ezekiel and Daniel, +as the books ascribed to Moses, Joshua, Samuel, etc., prove they were +not written by Moses, Joshua, Samuel, etc. + +Secondly, Because they were not written till after the Babylonish +captivity began; and there is good reason to believe that not any book +in the bible was written before that period; at least it is proveable, +from the books themselves, as I have already shown, that they were not +written till after the commencement of the Jewish monarchy. + +Thirdly, Because the manner in which the books ascribed to Ezekiel and +Daniel are written, agrees with the condition these men were in at the +time of writing them. + +Had the numerous commentators and priests, who have foolishly employed +or wasted their time in pretending to expound and unriddle those books, +been carred into captivity, as Ezekiel and Daniel were, it would +greatly have improved their intellects in comprehending the reason for +this mode of writing, and have saved them the trouble of racking their +invention, as they have done to no purpose; for they would have found +that themselves would be obliged to write whatever they had to write, +respecting their own affairs, or those of their friends, or of their +country, in a concealed manner, as those men have done. + +These two books differ from all the rest; for it is only these that are +filled with accounts of dreams and visions: and this difference arose +from the situation the writers were in as prisoners of war, or +prisoners of state, in a foreign country, which obliged them to convey +even the most trifling information to each other, and all their +political projects or opinions, in obscure and metaphorical terms. They +pretend to have dreamed dreams, and seen visions, because it was unsafe +for them to speak facts or plain language. We ought, however, to +suppose, that the persons to whom they wrote understood what they +meant, and that it was not intended anybody else should. But these busy +commentators and priests have been puzzling their wits to find out what +it was not intended they should know, and with which they have nothing +to do. + +Ezekiel and Daniel were carried prisoners to Babylon, under the first +captivity, in the time of Jehoiakim, nine years before the second +captivity in the time of Zedekiah. The Jews were then still numerous, +and had considerable force at Jerusalem; and as it is natural to +suppose that men in the situation of Ezekiel and Daniel would be +meditating the recovery of their country, and their own deliverance, it +is reasonable to suppose that the accounts of dreams and visions with +which these books are filled, are no other than a disguised mode of +correspondence to facilitate those objects: it served them as a cypher, +or secret alphabet. If they are not this, they are tales, reveries, and +nonsense; or at least a fanciful way of wearing off the wearisomeness +of captivity; but the presumption is, they are the former. + +Ezekiel begins his book by speaking of a vision of cherubims, and of a +wheel within a wheel, which he says he saw by the river Chebar, in the +land of his captivity. Is it not reasonable to suppose that by the +cherubims he meant the temple at Jerusalem, where they had figures of +cherubims? and by a wheel within a wheel (which as a figure has always +been understood to signify political contrivance) the project or means +of recovering Jerusalem? In the latter part of his book he supposes +himself transported to Jerusalem, and into the temple; and he refers +back to the vision on the river Chebar, and says, (xliii- 3,) that this +last vision was like the vision on the river Chebar; which indicates +that those pretended dreams and visions had for their object the +recovery of Jerusalem, and nothing further. + +As to the romantic interpretations and applications, wild as the dreams +and visions they undertake to explain, which commentators and priests +have made of those books, that of converting them into things which +they call prophecies, and making them bend to times and circumstances +as far remote even as the present day, it shows the fraud or the +extreme folly to which credulity or priestcraft can go. + +Scarcely anything can be more absurd than to suppose that men situated +as Ezekiel and Daniel were, whose country was over-run, and in the +possession of the enemy, all their friends and relations in captivity +abroad, or in slavery at home, or massacred, or in continual danger of +it; scarcely any thing, I say, can be more absurd than to suppose that +such men should find nothing to do but that of employing their time and +their thoughts about what was to happen to other nations a thousand or +two thousand years after they were dead; at the same time nothing more +natural than that they should meditate the recovery of Jerusalem, and +their own deliverance; and that this was the sole object of all the +obscure and apparently frantic writing contained in those books. + +In this sense the mode of writing used in those two books being forced +by necessity, and not adopted by choice, is not irrational; but, if we +are to use the books as prophecies, they are false. In Ezekiel xxix. +11., speaking of Egypt, it is said, “No foot of man shall pass through +it, nor foot of beast pass through it; neither shall it be inhabited +for forty years.” This is what never came to pass, and consequently it +is false, as all the books I have already reviewed are.—I here close +this part of the subject. + +In the former part of ‘The Age of Reason’ I have spoken of Jonah, and +of the story of him and the whale.—A fit story for ridicule, if it was +written to be believed; or of laughter, if it was intended to try what +credulity could swallow; for, if it could swallow Jonah and the whale +it could swallow anything. + +But, as is already shown in the observations on the book of Job and of +Proverbs, it is not always certain which of the books in the Bible are +originally Hebrew, or only translations from the books of the Gentiles +into Hebrew; and, as the book of Jonah, so far from treating of the +affairs of the Jews, says nothing upon that subject, but treats +altogether of the Gentiles, it is more probable that it is a book of +the Gentiles than of the Jews, [I have read in an ancient Persian poem +(Saadi, I believe, but have mislaid the reference) this phrase: “And +now the whale swallowed Jonah: the sun set.”—Editor.] and that it has +been written as a fable to expose the nonsense, and satyrize the +vicious and malignant character, of a Bible-prophet, or a predicting +priest. + +Jonah is represented, first as a disobedient prophet, running away from +his mission, and taking shelter aboard a vessel of the Gentiles, bound +from Joppa to Tarshish; as if he ignorantly supposed, by such a paltry +contrivance, he could hide himself where God could not find him. The +vessel is overtaken by a storm at sea; and the mariners, all of whom +are Gentiles, believing it to be a judgement on account of some one on +board who had committed a crime, agreed to cast lots to discover the +offender; and the lot fell upon Jonah. But before this they had cast +all their wares and merchandise over-board to lighten the vessel, while +Jonah, like a stupid fellow, was fast asleep in the hold. + +After the lot had designated Jonah to be the offender, they questioned +him to know who and what he was? and he told them he was an Hebrew; and +the story implies that he confessed himself to be guilty. But these +Gentiles, instead of sacrificing him at once without pity or mercy, as +a company of Bible-prophets or priests would have done by a Gentile in +the same case, and as it is related Samuel had done by Agag, and Moses +by the women and children, they endeavoured to save him, though at the +risk of their own lives: for the account says, “Nevertheless [that is, +though Jonah was a Jew and a foreigner, and the cause of all their +misfortunes, and the loss of their cargo] the men rowed hard to bring +the boat to land, but they could not, for the sea wrought and was +tempestuous against them.” Still however they were unwilling to put the +fate of the lot into execution; and they cried, says the account, unto +the Lord, saying, “We beseech thee, O Lord, let us not perish for this +man’s life, and lay not upon us innocent blood; for thou, O Lord, hast +done as it pleased thee.” Meaning thereby, that they did not presume to +judge Jonah guilty, since that he might be innocent; but that they +considered the lot that had fallen upon him as a decree of God, or as +it pleased God. The address of this prayer shows that the Gentiles +worshipped one Supreme Being, and that they were not idolaters as the +Jews represented them to be. But the storm still continuing, and the +danger encreasing, they put the fate of the lot into execution, and +cast Jonah in the sea; where, according to the story, a great fish +swallowed him up whole and alive! + +We have now to consider Jonah securely housed from the storm in the +fish’s belly. Here we are told that he prayed; but the prayer is a +made-up prayer, taken from various parts of the Psalms, without +connection or consistency, and adapted to the distress, but not at all +to the condition that Jonah was in. It is such a prayer as a Gentile, +who might know something of the Psalms, could copy out for him. This +circumstance alone, were there no other, is sufficient to indicate that +the whole is a made-up story. The prayer, however, is supposed to have +answered the purpose, and the story goes on, (taking-off at the same +time the cant language of a Bible-prophet,) saying, “The Lord spake +unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon dry land.” + +Jonah then received a second mission to Nineveh, with which he sets +out; and we have now to consider him as a preacher. The distress he is +represented to have suffered, the remembrance of his own disobedience +as the cause of it, and the miraculous escape he is supposed to have +had, were sufficient, one would conceive, to have impressed him with +sympathy and benevolence in the execution of his mission; but, instead +of this, he enters the city with denunciation and malediction in his +mouth, crying, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” + +We have now to consider this supposed missionary in the last act of his +mission; and here it is that the malevolent spirit of a Bible-prophet, +or of a predicting priest, appears in all that blackness of character +that men ascribe to the being they call the devil. + +Having published his predictions, he withdrew, says the story, to the +east side of the city.—But for what? not to contemplate in retirement +the mercy of his Creator to himself or to others, but to wait, with +malignant impatience, the destruction of Nineveh. It came to pass, +however, as the story relates, that the Ninevites reformed, and that +God, according to the Bible phrase, repented him of the evil he had +said he would do unto them, and did it not. This, saith the first verse +of the last chapter, displeased Jonah exceedingly and he was very +angry. His obdurate heart would rather that all Nineveh should be +destroyed, and every soul, young and old, perish in its ruins, than +that his prediction should not be fulfilled. To expose the character of +a prophet still more, a gourd is made to grow up in the night, that +promises him an agreeable shelter from the heat of the sun, in the +place to which he is retired; and the next morning it dies. + +Here the rage of the prophet becomes excessive, and he is ready to +destroy himself. “It is better, said he, for me to die than to live.” +This brings on a supposed expostulation between the Almighty and the +prophet; in which the former says, “Doest thou well to be angry for the +gourd? And Jonah said, I do well to be angry even unto death. Then said +the Lord, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for which thou hast not +laboured, neither madest it to grow, which came up in a night, and +perished in a night; and should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, +in which are more than threescore thousand persons, that cannot discern +between their right hand and their left?” + +Here is both the winding up of the satire, and the moral of the fable. +As a satire, it strikes against the character of all the +Bible-prophets, and against all the indiscriminate judgements upon men, +women and children, with which this lying book, the bible, is crowded; +such as Noah’s flood, the destruction of the cities of Sodom and +Gomorrah, the extirpation of the Canaanites, even to suckling infants, +and women with child; because the same reflection ‘that there are more +than threescore thousand persons that cannot discern between their +right hand and their left,’ meaning young children, applies to all +their cases. It satirizes also the supposed partiality of the Creator +for one nation more than for another. + +As a moral, it preaches against the malevolent spirit of prediction; +for as certainly as a man predicts ill, he becomes inclined to wish it. +The pride of having his judgment right hardens his heart, till at last +he beholds with satisfaction, or sees with disappointment, the +accomplishment or the failure of his predictions.—This book ends with +the same kind of strong and well-directed point against prophets, +prophecies and indiscriminate judgements, as the chapter that Benjamin +Franklin made for the Bible, about Abraham and the stranger, ends +against the intolerant spirit of religious persecutions—Thus much for +the book Jonah. [The story of Abraham and the Fire-worshipper, ascribed +to Franklin, is from Saadi. (See my “Sacred Anthology,” p. 61.) Paine +has often been called a “mere scoffer,” but he seems to have been among +the first to treat with dignity the book of Jonah, so especially liable +to the ridicule of superficial readers, and discern in it the highest +conception of Deity known to the Old Testament.—Editor.] + +Of the poetical parts of the Bible, that are called prophecies, I have +spoken in the former part of ‘The Age of Reason,’ and already in this, +where I have said that the word for prophet is the Bible-word for Poet, +and that the flights and metaphors of those poets, many of which have +become obscure by the lapse of time and the change of circumstances, +have been ridiculously erected into things called prophecies, and +applied to purposes the writers never thought of. When a priest quotes +any of those passages, he unriddles it agreeably to his own views, and +imposes that explanation upon his congregation as the meaning of the +writer. The whore of Babylon has been the common whore of all the +priests, and each has accused the other of keeping the strumpet; so +well do they agree in their explanations. + +There now remain only a few books, which they call books of the lesser +prophets; and as I have already shown that the greater are impostors, +it would be cowardice to disturb the repose of the little ones. Let +them sleep, then, in the arms of their nurses, the priests, and both be +forgotten together. + +I have now gone through the Bible, as a man would go through a wood +with an axe on his shoulder, and fell trees. Here they lie; and the +priests, if they can, may replant them. They may, perhaps, stick them +in the ground, but they will never make them grow.—I pass on to the +books of the New Testament. + + + + +CHAPTER II. +THE NEW TESTAMENT + + +The New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon the prophecies of the +Old; if so, it must follow the fate of its foundation. + +As it is nothing extraordinary that a woman should be with child before +she was married, and that the son she might bring forth should be +executed, even unjustly, I see no reason for not believing that such a +woman as Mary, and such a man as Joseph, and Jesus, existed; their mere +existence is a matter of indifference, about which there is no ground +either to believe or to disbelieve, and which comes under the common +head of, It may be so, and what then? The probability however is that +there were such persons, or at least such as resembled them in part of +the circumstances, because almost all romantic stories have been +suggested by some actual circumstance; as the adventures of Robinson +Crusoe, not a word of which is true, were suggested by the case of +Alexander Selkirk. + +It is not then the existence or the non-existence, of the persons that +I trouble myself about; it is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the +New Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, +against which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is +blasphemously obscene. It gives an account of a young woman engaged to +be married, and while under this engagement, she is, to speak plain +language, debauched by a ghost, under the impious pretence, (Luke i. +35,) that “the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the +Highest shall overshadow thee.” Notwithstanding which, Joseph +afterwards marries her, cohabits with her as his wife, and in his turn +rivals the ghost. This is putting the story into intelligible language, +and when told in this manner, there is not a priest but must be ashamed +to own it. [Mary, the supposed virgin, mother of Jesus, had several +other children, sons and daughters. See Matt. xiii. 55, 56.—Author.] + +Obscenity in matters of faith, however wrapped up, is always a token of +fable and imposture; for it is necessary to our serious belief in God, +that we do not connect it with stories that run, as this does, into +ludicrous interpretations. This story is, upon the face of it, the same +kind of story as that of Jupiter and Leda, or Jupiter and Europa, or +any of the amorous adventures of Jupiter; and shews, as is already +stated in the former part of ‘The Age of Reason,’ that the Christian +faith is built upon the heathen Mythology. + +As the historical parts of the New Testament, so far as concerns Jesus +Christ, are confined to a very short space of time, less than two +years, and all within the same country, and nearly to the same spot, +the discordance of time, place, and circumstance, which detects the +fallacy of the books of the Old Testament, and proves them to be +impositions, cannot be expected to be found here in the same abundance. +The New Testament compared with the Old, is like a farce of one act, in +which there is not room for very numerous violations of the unities. +There are, however, some glaring contradictions, which, exclusive of +the fallacy of the pretended prophecies, are sufficient to show the +story of Jesus Christ to be false. + +I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted, first, that +the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to +be true, because the parts may agree, and the whole may be false; +secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the +whole cannot be true. The agreement does not prove truth, but the +disagreement proves falsehood positively. + +The history of Jesus Christ is contained in the four books ascribed to +Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.—The first chapter of Matthew begins with +giving a genealogy of Jesus Christ; and in the third chapter of Luke +there is also given a genealogy of Jesus Christ. Did these two agree, +it would not prove the genealogy to be true, because it might +nevertheless be a fabrication; but as they contradict each other in +every particular, it proves falsehood absolutely. If Matthew speaks +truth, Luke speaks falsehood; and if Luke speaks truth, Matthew speaks +falsehood: and as there is no authority for believing one more than the +other, there is no authority for believing either; and if they cannot +be believed even in the very first thing they say, and set out to +prove, they are not entitled to be believed in any thing they say +afterwards. Truth is an uniform thing; and as to inspiration and +revelation, were we to admit it, it is impossible to suppose it can be +contradictory. Either then the men called apostles were imposters, or +the books ascribed to them have been written by other persons, and +fathered upon them, as is the case in the Old Testament. + +The book of Matthew gives (i. 6), a genealogy by name from David, up, +through Joseph, the husband of Mary, to Christ; and makes there to be +twent eight generations. The book of Luke gives also a genealogy by +name from Christ, through Joseph the husband of Mary, down to David, +and makes there to be forty-three generations; besides which, there is +only the two names of David and Joseph that are alike in the two +lists.—I here insert both genealogical lists, and for the sake of +perspicuity and comparison, have placed them both in the same +direction, that is, from Joseph down to David. + + + Genealogy, according to Genealogy, according to + Matthew. Luke. + + Christ Christ + 2 Joseph 2 Joseph + 3 Jacob 3 Heli + 4 Matthan 4 Matthat + 5 Eleazer 5 Levi + 6 Eliud 6 Melchl + 7 Achim 7 Janna + 8 Sadoc 8 Joseph + 9 Azor 9 Mattathias + 10 Eliakim 10 Amos + 11 Abiud 11 Naum + 12 Zorobabel 12 Esli + 13 Salathiel 13 Nagge + 14 Jechonias 14 Maath + 15 Josias 15 Mattathias + 16 Amon 16 Semei + 17 Manasses 17 Joseph + 18 Ezekias 18 Juda + 19 Achaz 19 Joanna + 20 Joatham 20 Rhesa + 21 Ozias 21 Zorobabel + 22 Joram 22 Salathiel + 23 Josaphat 23 Neri + 24 Asa 24 Melchi + 25 Abia 25 Addi + 26 Roboam 26 Cosam + 27 Solomon 27 Elmodam + 28 David * 28 Er + 29 Jose + 30 Eliezer + 31 Jorim + 32 Matthat + 33 Levi + 34 Simeon + 35 Juda + 36 Joseph + 37 Jonan + 38 Eliakim + 39 Melea + 40 Menan + 41 Mattatha + 42 Nathan + 43 David + + +[NOTE: * From the birth of David to the birth of Christ is upwards of +1080 years; and as the life-time of Christ is not included, there are +but 27 full generations. To find therefore the average age of each +person mentioned in the list, at the time his first son was born, it is +only necessary to divide 1080 by 27, which gives 40 years for each +person. As the life-time of man was then but of the same extent it is +now, it is an absurdity to suppose, that 27 following generations +should all be old bachelors, before they married; and the more so, when +we are told that Solomon, the next in succession to David, had a house +full of wives and mistresses before he was twenty-one years of age. So +far from this genealogy being a solemn truth, it is not even a +reasonable lie. The list of Luke gives about twenty-six years for the +average age, and this is too much.—Author.] + +Now, if these men, Matthew and Luke, set out with a falsehood between +them (as these two accounts show they do) in the very commencement of +their history of Jesus Christ, and of who, and of what he was, what +authority (as I have before asked) is there left for believing the +strange things they tell us afterwards? If they cannot be believed in +their account of his natural genealogy, how are we to believe them when +they tell us he was the son of God, begotten by a ghost; and that an +angel announced this in secret to his mother? If they lied in one +genealogy, why are we to believe them in the other? If his natural +genealogy be manufactured, which it certainly is, why are we not to +suppose that his celestial genealogy is manufactured also, and that the +whole is fabulous? Can any man of serious reflection hazard his future +happiness upon the belief of a story naturally impossible, repugnant to +every idea of decency, and related by persons already detected of +falsehood? Is it not more safe that we stop ourselves at the plain, +pure, and unmixed belief of one God, which is deism, than that we +commit ourselves on an ocean of improbable, irrational, indecent, and +contradictory tales? + +The first question, however, upon the books of the New Testament, as +upon those of the Old, is, Are they genuine? were they written by the +persons to whom they are ascribed? For it is upon this ground only that +the strange things related therein have been credited. Upon this point, +there is no direct proof for or against; and all that this state of a +case proves is doubtfulness; and doubtfulness is the opposite of +belief. The state, therefore, that the books are in, proves against +themselves as far as this kind of proof can go. + +But, exclusive of this, the presumption is that the books called the +Evangelists, and ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were not +written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and that they are +impositions. The disordered state of the history in these four books, +the silence of one book upon matters related in the other, and the +disagreement that is to be found among them, implies that they are the +productions of some unconnected individuals, many years after the +things they pretend to relate, each of whom made his own legend; and +not the writings of men living intimately together, as the men called +apostles are supposed to have done: in fine, that they have been +manufactured, as the books of the Old Testament have been, by other +persons than those whose names they bear. + +The story of the angel announcing what the church calls the immaculate +conception, is not so much as mentioned in the books ascribed to Mark, +and John; and is differently related in Matthew and Luke. The former +says the angel, appeared to Joseph; the latter says, it was to Mary; +but either Joseph or Mary was the worst evidence that could have been +thought of; for it was others that should have testified for them, and +not they for themselves. Were any girl that is now with child to say, +and even to swear it, that she was gotten with child by a ghost, and +that an angel told her so, would she be believed? Certainly she would +not. Why then are we to believe the same thing of another girl whom we +never saw, told by nobody knows who, nor when, nor where? How strange +and inconsistent is it, that the same circumstance that would weaken +the belief even of a probable story, should be given as a motive for +believing this one, that has upon the face of it every token of +absolute impossibility and imposture. + +The story of Herod destroying all the children under two years old, +belongs altogether to the book of Matthew; not one of the rest mentions +anything about it. Had such a circumstance been true, the universality +of it must have made it known to all the writers, and the thing would +have been too striking to have been omitted by any. This writer tell +us, that Jesus escaped this slaughter, because Joseph and Mary were +warned by an angel to flee with him into Egypt; but he forgot to make +provision for John [the Baptist], who was then under two years of age. +John, however, who staid behind, fared as well as Jesus, who fled; and +therefore the story circumstantially belies itself. + +Not any two of these writers agree in reciting, exactly in the same +words, the written inscription, short as it is, which they tell us was +put over Christ when he was crucified; and besides this, Mark says, He +was crucified at the third hour, (nine in the morning;) and John says +it was the sixth hour, (twelve at noon.) [According to John, (xix. 14) +the sentence was not passed till about the sixth hour (noon,) and +consequently the execution could not be till the afternoon; but Mark +(xv. 25) Says expressly that he was crucified at the third hour, (nine +in the morning,)—Author.] + +The inscription is thus stated in those books: + +Matthew—This is Jesus the king of the Jews. Mark—The king of the Jews. +Luke—This is the king of the Jews. John—Jesus of Nazareth the king of +the Jews. + +We may infer from these circumstances, trivial as they are, that those +writers, whoever they were, and in whatever time they lived, were not +present at the scene. The only one of the men called apostles who +appears to have been near to the spot was Peter, and when he was +accused of being one of Jesus’s followers, it is said, (Matthew xxvi. +74,) “Then Peter began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the +man:” yet we are now called to believe the same Peter, convicted, by +their own account, of perjury. For what reason, or on what authority, +should we do this? + +The accounts that are given of the circumstances, that they tell us +attended the crucifixion, are differently related in those four books. + +The book ascribed to Matthew says ‘there was darkness over all the land +from the sixth hour unto the ninth hour—that the veil of the temple was +rent in twain from the top to the bottom—that there was an +earthquake—that the rocks rent—that the graves opened, that the bodies +of many of the saints that slept arose and came out of their graves +after the resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared unto +many.’ Such is the account which this dashing writer of the book of +Matthew gives, but in which he is not supported by the writers of the +other books. + +The writer of the book ascribed to Mark, in detailing the circumstances +of the crucifixion, makes no mention of any earthquake, nor of the +rocks rending, nor of the graves opening, nor of the dead men walking +out. The writer of the book of Luke is silent also upon the same +points. And as to the writer of the book of John, though he details all +the circumstances of the crucifixion down to the burial of Christ, he +says nothing about either the darkness—the veil of the temple—the +earthquake—the rocks—the graves—nor the dead men. + +Now if it had been true that these things had happened, and if the +writers of these books had lived at the time they did happen, and had +been the persons they are said to be—namely, the four men called +apostles, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,—it was not possible for them, +as true historians, even without the aid of inspiration, not to have +recorded them. The things, supposing them to have been facts, were of +too much notoriety not to have been known, and of too much importance +not to have been told. All these supposed apostles must have been +witnesses of the earthquake, if there had been any, for it was not +possible for them to have been absent from it: the opening of the +graves and resurrection of the dead men, and their walking about the +city, is of still greater importance than the earthquake. An earthquake +is always possible, and natural, and proves nothing; but this opening +of the graves is supernatural, and directly in point to their doctrine, +their cause, and their apostleship. Had it been true, it would have +filled up whole chapters of those books, and been the chosen theme and +general chorus of all the writers; but instead of this, little and +trivial things, and mere prattling conversation of ‘he said this and +she said that’ are often tediously detailed, while this most important +of all, had it been true, is passed off in a slovenly manner by a +single dash of the pen, and that by one writer only, and not so much as +hinted at by the rest. + +It is an easy thing to tell a lie, but it is difficult to support the +lie after it is told. The writer of the book of Matthew should have +told us who the saints were that came to life again, and went into the +city, and what became of them afterwards, and who it was that saw them; +for he is not hardy enough to say that he saw them himself;—whether +they came out naked, and all in natural buff, he-saints and she-saints, +or whether they came full dressed, and where they got their dresses; +whether they went to their former habitations, and reclaimed their +wives, their husbands, and their property, and how they were received; +whether they entered ejectments for the recovery of their possessions, +or brought actions of crim. con. against the rival interlopers; whether +they remained on earth, and followed their former occupation of +preaching or working; or whether they died again, or went back to their +graves alive, and buried themselves. + +Strange indeed, that an army of saints should retum to life, and nobody +know who they were, nor who it was that saw them, and that not a word +more should be said upon the subject, nor these saints have any thing +to tell us! Had it been the prophets who (as we are told) had formerly +prophesied of these things, they must have had a great deal to say. +They could have told us everything, and we should have had posthumous +prophecies, with notes and commentaries upon the first, a little better +at least than we have now. Had it been Moses, and Aaron, and Joshua, +and Samuel, and David, not an unconverted Jew had remained in all +Jerusalem. Had it been John the Baptist, and the saints of the times +then present, everybody would have known them, and they would have +out-preached and out-famed all the other apostles. But, instead of +this, these saints are made to pop up, like Jonah’s gourd in the night, +for no purpose at all but to wither in the morning.—Thus much for this +part of the story. + +The tale of the resurrection follows that of the crucifixion; and in +this as well as in that, the writers, whoever they were, disagree so +much as to make it evident that none of them were there. + +The book of Matthew states, that when Christ was put in the sepulchre +the Jews applied to Pilate for a watch or a guard to be placed over the +septilchre, to prevent the body being stolen by the disciples; and that +in consequence of this request the sepulchre was made sure, sealing the +stone that covered the mouth, and setting a watch. But the other books +say nothing about this application, nor about the sealing, nor the +guard, nor the watch; and according to their accounts, there were none. +Matthew, however, follows up this part of the story of the guard or the +watch with a second part, that I shall notice in the conclusion, as it +serves to detect the fallacy of those books. + +The book of Matthew continues its account, and says, (xxviii. 1,) that +at the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn, towards the first day +of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, to see the +sepulchre. Mark says it was sun-rising, and John says it was dark. Luke +says it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, +and other women, that came to the sepulchre; and John states that Mary +Magdalene came alone. So well do they agree about their first evidence! +They all, however, appear to have known most about Mary Magdalene; she +was a woman of large acquaintance, and it was not an ill conjecture +that she might be upon the stroll. [The Bishop of Llandaff, in his +famous “Apology,” censured Paine severely for this insinuation against +Mary Magdalene, but the censure really falls on our English version, +which, by a chapter-heading (Luke vii.), has unwarrantably identified +her as the sinful woman who anointed Jesus, and irrevocably branded +her.—Editor.] + +The book of Matthew goes on to say (ver. 2): “And behold there was a +great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and +came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it” But the +other books say nothing about any earthquake, nor about the angel +rolling back the stone, and sitting upon it and, according to their +account, there was no angel sitting there. Mark says the angel [Mark +says “a young man,” and Luke “two men.”—Editor.] was within the +sepulchre, sitting on the right side. Luke says there were two, and +they were both standing up; and John says they were both sitting down, +one at the head and the other at the feet. + +Matthew says, that the angel that was sitting upon the stone on the +outside of the sepulchre told the two Marys that Christ was risen, and +that the women went away quickly. Mark says, that the women, upon +seeing the stone rolled away, and wondering at it, went into the +sepulchre, and that it was the angel that was sitting within on the +right side, that told them so. Luke says, it was the two angels that +were Standing up; and John says, it was Jesus Christ himself that told +it to Mary Magdalene; and that she did not go into the sepulchre, but +only stooped down and looked in. + +Now, if the writers of these four books had gone into a court of +justice to prove an alibi, (for it is of the nature of an alibi that is +here attempted to be proved, namely, the absence of a dead body by +supernatural means,) and had they given their evidence in the same +contradictory manner as it is here given, they would have been in +danger of having their ears cropt for perjury, and would have justly +deserved it. Yet this is the evidence, and these are the books, that +have been imposed upon the world as being given by divine inspiration, +and as the unchangeable word of God. + +The writer of the book of Matthew, after giving this account, relates a +story that is not to be found in any of the other books, and which is +the same I have just before alluded to. “Now,” says he, [that is, after +the conversation the women had had with the angel sitting upon the +stone,] “behold some of the watch [meaning the watch that he had said +had been placed over the sepulchre] came into the city, and shewed unto +the chief priests all the things that were done; and when they were +assembled with the elders and had taken counsel, they gave large money +unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, that his disciples came by night, +and stole him away while we slept; and if this come to the governor’s +ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and +did as they were taught; and this saying [that his disciples stole him +away] is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.” + +The expression, until this day, is an evidence that the book ascribed +to Matthew was not written by Matthew, and that it has been +manufactured long after the times and things of which it pretends to +treat; for the expression implies a great length of intervening time. +It would be inconsistent in us to speak in this manner of any thing +happening in our own time. To give, therefore, intelligible meaning to +the expression, we must suppose a lapse of some generations at least, +for this manner of speaking carries the mind back to ancient time. + +The absurdity also of the story is worth noticing; for it shows the +writer of the book of Matthew to have been an exceeding weak and +foolish man. He tells a story that contradicts itself in point of +possibility; for though the guard, if there were any, might be made to +say that the body was taken away while they were asleep, and to give +that as a reason for their not having prevented it, that same sleep +must also have prevented their knowing how, and by whom, it was done; +and yet they are made to say that it was the disciples who did it. Were +a man to tender his evidence of something that he should say was done, +and of the manner of doing it, and of the person who did it, while he +was asleep, and could know nothing of the matter, such evidence could +not be received: it will do well enough for Testament evidence, but not +for any thing where truth is concerned. + +I come now to that part of the evidence in those books, that respects +the pretended appearance of Christ after this pretended resurrection. + +The writer of the book of Matthew relates, that the angel that was +sitting on the stone at the mouth of the sepulchre, said to the two +Marys (xxviii. 7), “Behold Christ is gone before you into Galilee, +there ye shall see him; lo, I have told you.” And the same writer at +the next two verses (8, 9,) makes Christ himself to speak to the same +purpose to these women immediately after the angel had told it to them, +and that they ran quickly to tell it to the disciples; and it is said +(ver. 16), “Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a +mountain where Jesus had appointed them; and, when they saw him, they +worshipped him.” + +But the writer of the book of John tells us a story very different to +this; for he says (xx. 19) “Then the same day at evening, being the +first day of the week, [that is, the same day that Christ is said to +have risen,] when the doors were shut, where the disciples were +assembled, for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst of +them.” + +According to Matthew the eleven were marching to Galilee, to meet Jesus +in a mountain, by his own appointment, at the very time when, according +to John, they were assembled in another place, and that not by +appointment, but in secret, for fear of the Jews. + +The writer of the book of Luke xxiv. 13, 33-36, contradicts that of +Matthew more pointedly than John does; for he says expressly, that the +meeting was in Jerusalem the evening of the same day that he (Christ) +rose, and that the eleven were there. + +Now, it is not possible, unless we admit these supposed disciples the +right of wilful lying, that the writers of these books could be any of +the eleven persons called disciples; for if, according to Matthew, the +eleven went into Galilee to meet Jesus in a mountain by his own +appointment, on the same day that he is said to have risen, Luke and +John must have been two of that eleven; yet the writer of Luke says +expressly, and John implies as much, that the meeting was that same +day, in a house in Jerusalem; and, on the other hand, if, according to +Luke and John, the eleven were assembled in a house in Jerusalem, +Matthew must have been one of that eleven; yet Matthew says the meeting +was in a mountain in Galilee, and consequently the evidence given in +those books destroy each other. + +The writer of the book of Mark says nothing about any meeting in +Galilee; but he says (xvi. 12) that Christ, after his resurrection, +appeared in another form to two of them, as they walked into the +country, and that these two told it to the residue, who would not +believe them. [This belongs to the late addition to Mark, which +originally ended with xvi. 8.—Editor.] Luke also tells a story, in +which he keeps Christ employed the whole of the day of this pretended +resurrection, until the evening, and which totally invalidates the +account of going to the mountain in Galilee. He says, that two of them, +without saying which two, went that same day to a village called +Emmaus, three score furlongs (seven miles and a half) from Jerusalem, +and that Christ in disguise went with them, and stayed with them unto +the evening, and supped with them, and then vanished out of their +sight, and reappeared that same evening, at the meeting of the eleven +in Jerusalem. + +This is the contradictory manner in which the evidence of this +pretended reappearance of Christ is stated: the only point in which the +writers agree, is the skulking privacy of that reappearance; for +whether it was in the recess of a mountain in Galilee, or in a shut-up +house in Jerusalem, it was still skulking. To what cause then are we to +assign this skulking? On the one hand, it is directly repugnant to the +supposed or pretended end, that of convincing the world that Christ was +risen; and, on the other hand, to have asserted the publicity of it +would have exposed the writers of those books to public detection; and, +therefore, they have been under the necessity of making it a private +affair. + +As to the account of Christ being seen by more than five hundred at +once, it is Paul only who says it, and not the five hundred who say it +for themselves. It is, therefore, the testimony of but one man, and +that too of a man, who did not, according to the same account, believe +a word of the matter himself at the time it is said to have happened. +His evidence, supposing him to have been the writer of Corinthians xv., +where this account is given, is like that of a man who comes into a +court of justice to swear that what he had sworn before was false. A +man may often see reason, and he has too always the right of changing +his opinion; but this liberty does not extend to matters of fact. + +I now come to the last scene, that of the ascension into heaven.—Here +all fear of the Jews, and of every thing else, must necessarily have +been out of the question: it was that which, if true, was to seal the +whole; and upon which the reality of the future mission of the +disciples was to rest for proof. Words, whether declarations or +promises, that passed in private, either in the recess of a mountain in +Galilee, or in a shut-up house in Jerusalem, even supposing them to +have been spoken, could not be evidence in public; it was therefore +necessary that this last scene should preclude the possibility of +denial and dispute; and that it should be, as I have stated in the +former part of ‘The Age of Reason,’ as public and as visible as the sun +at noon-day; at least it ought to have been as public as the +crucifixion is reported to have been.—But to come to the point. + +In the first place, the writer of the book of Matthew does not say a +syllable about it; neither does the writer of the book of John. This +being the case, is it possible to suppose that those writers, who +affect to be even minute in other matters, would have been silent upon +this, had it been true? The writer of the book of Mark passes it off in +a careless, slovenly manner, with a single dash of the pen, as if he +was tired of romancing, or ashamed of the story. So also does the +writer of Luke. And even between these two, there is not an apparent +agreement, as to the place where this final parting is said to have +been. [The last nine verses of Mark being ungenuine, the story of the +ascension rests exclusively on the words in Luke xxiv. 51, “was carried +up into heaven,”—words omitted by several ancient authorities.—Editor.] + +The book of Mark says that Christ appeared to the eleven as they sat at +meat, alluding to the meeting of the eleven at Jerusalem: he then +states the conversation that he says passed at that meeting; and +immediately after says (as a school-boy would finish a dull story,) “So +then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into +heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” But the writer of Luke says, +that the ascension was from Bethany; that he (Christ) led them out as +far as Bethany, and was parted from them there, and was carried up into +heaven. So also was Mahomet: and, as to Moses, the apostle Jude says, +ver. 9. That ‘Michael and the devil disputed about his body.’ While we +believe such fables as these, or either of them, we believe unworthily +of the Almighty. + +I have now gone through the examination of the four books ascribed to +Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; and when it is considered that the whole +space of time, from the crucifixion to what is called the ascension, is +but a few days, apparently not more than three or four, and that all +the circumstances are reported to have happened nearly about the same +spot, Jerusalem, it is, I believe, impossible to find in any story upon +record so many and such glaring absurdities, contradictions, and +falsehoods, as are in those books. They are more numerous and striking +than I had any expectation of finding, when I began this examination, +and far more so than I had any idea of when I wrote the former part of +‘The Age of Reason.’ I had then neither Bible nor Testament to refer +to, nor could I procure any. My own situation, even as to existence, +was becoming every day more precarious; and as I was willing to leave +something behind me upon the subject, I was obliged to be quick and +concise. The quotations I then made were from memory only, but they are +correct; and the opinions I have advanced in that work are the effect +of the most clear and long-established conviction,—that the Bible and +the Testament are impositions upon the world;—that the fall of man, the +account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to +appease the wrath of God, and of salvation by that strange means, are +all fabulous inventions, dishonourable to the wisdom and power of the +Almighty;—that the only true religion is deism, by which I then meant +and now mean the belief of one God, and an imitation of his moral +character, or the practice of what are called moral virtues;—and that +it was upon this only (so far as religion is concerned) that I rested +all my hopes of happiness hereafter. So say I now—and so help me God. + +But to retum to the subject.—Though it is impossible, at this distance +of time, to ascertain as a fact who were the writers of those four +books (and this alone is sufficient to hold them in doubt, and where we +doubt we do not believe) it is not difficult to ascertain negatively +that they were not written by the persons to whom they are ascribed. +The contradictions in those books demonstrate two things: + +First, that the writers cannot have been eye-witnesses and +ear-witnesses of the matters they relate, or they would have related +them without those contradictions; and, consequently that the books +have not been written by the persons called apostles, who are supposed +to have been witnesses of this kind. + +Secondly, that the writers, whoever they were, have not acted in +concerted imposition, but each writer separately and individually for +himself, and without the knowledge of the other. + +The same evidence that applies to prove the one, applies equally to +prove both cases; that is, that the books were not written by the men +called apostles, and also that they are not a concerted imposition. As +to inspiration, it is altogether out of the question; we may as well +attempt to unite truth and falsehood, as inspiration and contradiction. + +If four men are eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses to a scene, they will +without any concert between them, agree as to time and place, when and +where that scene happened. Their individual knowledge of the thing, +each one knowing it for himself, renders concert totally unnecessary; +the one will not say it was in a mountain in the country, and the other +at a house in town; the one will not say it was at sunrise, and the +other that it was dark. For in whatever place it was and whatever time +it was, they know it equally alike. + +And on the other hand, if four men concert a story, they will make +their separate relations of that story agree and corroborate with each +other to support the whole. That concert supplies the want of fact in +the one case, as the knowledge of the fact supersedes, in the other +case, the necessity of a concert. The same contradictions, therefore, +that prove there has been no concert, prove also that the reporters had +no knowledge of the fact, (or rather of that which they relate as a +fact,) and detect also the falsehood of their reports. Those books, +therefore, have neither been written by the men called apostles, nor by +imposters in concert.—How then have they been written? + +I am not one of those who are fond of believing there is much of that +which is called wilful lying, or lying originally, except in the case +of men setting up to be prophets, as in the Old Testament; for +prophesying is lying professionally. In almost all other cases it is +not difficult to discover the progress by which even simple +supposition, with the aid of credulity, will in time grow into a lie, +and at last be told as a fact; and whenever we can find a charitable +reason for a thing of this kind, we ought not to indulge a severe one. + +The story of Jesus Christ appearing after he was dead is the story of +an apparition, such as timid imaginations can always create in vision, +and credulity believe. Stories of this kind had been told of the +assassination of Julius Caesar not many years before, and they +generally have their origin in violent deaths, or in execution of +innocent persons. In cases of this kind, compassion lends its aid, and +benevolently stretches the story. It goes on a little and a little +farther, till it becomes a most certain truth. Once start a ghost, and +credulity fills up the history of its life, and assigns the cause of +its appearance; one tells it one way, another another way, till there +are as many stories about the ghost, and about the proprietor of the +ghost, as there are about Jesus Christ in these four books. + +The story of the appearance of Jesus Christ is told with that strange +mixture of the natural and impossible, that distinguishes legendary +tale from fact. He is represented as suddenly coming in and going out +when the doors are shut, and of vanishing out of sight, and appearing +again, as one would conceive of an unsubstantial vision; then again he +is hungry, sits down to meat, and eats his supper. But as those who +tell stories of this kind never provide for all the cases, so it is +here: they have told us, that when he arose he left his grave-clothes +behind him; but they have forgotten to provide other clothes for him to +appear in afterwards, or to tell us what he did with them when he +ascended; whether he stripped all off, or went up clothes and all. In +the case of Elijah, they have been careful enough to make him throw +down his mantle; how it happened not to be burnt in the chariot of +fire, they also have not told us; but as imagination supplies all +deficiencies of this kind, we may suppose if we please that it was made +of salamander’s wool. + +Those who are not much acquainted with ecclesiastical history, may +suppose that the book called the New Testament has existed ever since +the time of Jesus Christ, as they suppose that the books ascribed to +Moses have existed ever since the time of Moses. But the fact is +historically otherwise; there was no such book as the New Testament +till more than three hundred years after the time that Christ is said +to have lived. + +At what time the books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, began +to appear, is altogether a matter of uncertainty. There is not the +least shadow of evidence of who the persons were that wrote them, nor +at what time they were written; and they might as well have been called +by the names of any of the other supposed apostles as by the names they +are now called. The originals are not in the possession of any +Christian Church existing, any more than the two tables of stone +written on, they pretend, by the finger of God, upon Mount Sinai, and +given to Moses, are in the possession of the Jews. And even if they +were, there is no possibility of proving the hand-writing in either +case. At the time those four books were written there was no printing, +and consequently there could be no publication otherwise than by +written copies, which any man might make or alter at pleasure, and call +them originals. Can we suppose it is consistent with the wisdom of the +Almighty to commit himself and his will to man upon such precarious +means as these; or that it is consistent we should pin our faith upon +such uncertainties? We cannot make nor alter, nor even imitate, so much +as one blade of grass that he has made, and yet we can make or alter +words of God as easily as words of man. [The former part of the ‘Age of +Reason’ has not been published two years, and there is already an +expression in it that is not mine. The expression is: The book of Luke +was carried by a majority of one voice only. It may be true, but it is +not I that have said it. Some person who might know of that +circumstance, has added it in a note at the bottom of the page of some +of the editions, printed either in England or in America; and the +printers, after that, have erected it into the body of the work, and +made me the author of it. If this has happened within such a short +space of time, notwithstanding the aid of printing, which prevents the +alteration of copies individually, what may not have happened in a much +greater length of time, when there was no printing, and when any man +who could write could make a written copy and call it an original by +Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?—Author.] + +[The spurious addition to Paine’s work alluded to in his footnote drew +on him a severe criticism from Dr. Priestley (“Letters to a +Philosophical Unbeliever,” p. 75), yet it seems to have been Priestley +himself who, in his quotation, first incorporated into Paine’s text the +footnote added by the editor of the American edition (1794). The +American added: “Vide Moshiem’s (sic) Ecc. History,” which Priestley +omits. In a modern American edition I notice four verbal alterations +introduced into the above footnote.—Editor.] + +About three hundred and fifty years after the time that Christ is said +to have lived, several writings of the kind I am speaking of were +scattered in the hands of divers individuals; and as the church had +begun to form itself into an hierarchy, or church government, with +temporal powers, it set itself about collecting them into a code, as we +now see them, called ‘The New Testament.’ They decided by vote, as I +have before said in the former part of the Age of Reason, which of +those writings, out of the collection they had made, should be the word +of God, and which should not. The Robbins of the Jews had decided, by +vote, upon the books of the Bible before. + +As the object of the church, as is the case in all national +establishments of churches, was power and revenue, and terror the means +it used, it is consistent to suppose that the most miraculous and +wonderful of the writings they had collected stood the best chance of +being voted. And as to the authenticity of the books, the vote stands +in the place of it; for it can be traced no higher. + +Disputes, however, ran high among the people then calling themselves +Christians, not only as to points of doctrine, but as to the +authenticity of the books. In the contest between the person called St. +Augustine, and Fauste, about the year 400, the latter says, “The books +called the Evangelists have been composed long after the times of the +apostles, by some obscure men, who, fearing that the world would not +give credit to their relation of matters of which they could not be +informed, have published them under the names of the apostles; and +which are so full of sottishness and discordant relations, that there +is neither agreement nor connection between them.” + +And in another place, addressing himself to the advocates of those +books, as being the word of God, he says, “It is thus that your +predecessors have inserted in the scriptures of our Lord many things +which, though they carry his name, agree not with his doctrine.” This +is not surprising, since that we have often proved that these things +have not been written by himself, nor by his apostles, but that for the +greatest part they are founded upon tales, upon vague reports, and put +together by I know not what half-Jews, with but little agreement +between them; and which they have nevertheless published under the name +of the apostles of our Lord, and have thus attributed to them their own +errors and their lies. [I have taken these two extracts from +Boulanger’s Life of Paul, written in French; Boulanger has quoted them +from the writings of Augustine against Fauste, to which he +refers.—Author.] + +This Bishop Faustus is usually styled “The Manichaeum,” Augustine +having entitled his book, Contra Frustum Manichaeum Libri xxxiii., in +which nearly the whole of Faustus’ very able work is quoted.—Editor.] + +The reader will see by those extracts that the authenticity of the +books of the New Testament was denied, and the books treated as tales, +forgeries, and lies, at the time they were voted to be the word of God. +But the interest of the church, with the assistance of the faggot, bore +down the opposition, and at last suppressed all investigation. Miracles +followed upon miracles, if we will believe them, and men were taught to +say they believed whether they believed or not. But (by way of throwing +in a thought) the French Revolution has excommunicated the church from +the power of working miracles; she has not been able, with the +assistance of all her saints, to work one miracle since the revolution +began; and as she never stood in greater need than now, we may, without +the aid of divination, conclude that all her former miracles are tricks +and lies. [Boulanger in his life of Paul, has collected from the +ecclesiastical histories, and the writings of the fathers as they are +called, several matters which show the opinions that prevailed among +the different sects of Christians, at the time the Testament, as we now +see it, was voted to be the word of God. The following extracts are +from the second chapter of that work: + +[The Marcionists (a Christian sect) asserted that the evangelists were +filled with falsities. The Manichaeans, who formed a very numerous sect +at the commencement of Christianity, rejected as false all the New +Testament, and showed other writings quite different that they gave for +authentic. The Corinthians, like the Marcionists, admitted not the Acts +of the Apostles. The Encratites and the Sevenians adopted neither the +Acts, nor the Epistles of Paul. Chrysostom, in a homily which he made +upon the Acts of the Apostles, says that in his time, about the year +400, many people knew nothing either of the author or of the book. St. +Irene, who lived before that time, reports that the Valentinians, like +several other sects of the Christians, accused the scriptures of being +filled with imperfections, errors, and contradictions. The Ebionites, +or Nazarenes, who were the first Christians, rejected all the Epistles +of Paul, and regarded him as an impostor. They report, among other +things, that he was originally a Pagan; that he came to Jerusalem, +where he lived some time; and that having a mind to marry the daughter +of the high priest, he had himself been circumcised; but that not being +able to obtain her, he quarrelled with the Jews and wrote against +circumcision, and against the observation of the Sabbath, and against +all the legal ordinances.—Author.] [Much abridged from the Exam. Crit. +de la Vie de St. Paul, by N.A. Boulanger, 1770.—Editor.] + +When we consider the lapse of more than three hundred years intervening +between the time that Christ is said to have lived and the time the New +Testament was formed into a book, we must see, even without the +assistance of historical evidence, the exceeding uncertainty there is +of its authenticity. The authenticity of the book of Homer, so far as +regards the authorship, is much better established than that of the New +Testament, though Homer is a thousand years the most ancient. It was +only an exceeding good poet that could have written the book of Homer, +and, therefore, few men only could have attempted it; and a man capable +of doing it would not have thrown away his own fame by giving it to +another. In like manner, there were but few that could have composed +Euclid’s Elements, because none but an exceeding good geometrician +could have been the author of that work. + +But with respect to the books of the New Testament, particularly such +parts as tell us of the resurrection and ascension of Christ, any +person who could tell a story of an apparition, or of a man’s walking, +could have made such books; for the story is most wretchedly told. The +chance, therefore, of forgery in the Testament is millions to one +greater than in the case of Homer or Euclid. Of the numerous priests or +parsons of the present day, bishops and all, every one of them can make +a sermon, or translate a scrap of Latin, especially if it has been +translated a thousand times before; but is there any amongst them that +can write poetry like Homer, or science like Euclid? The sum total of a +parson’s learning, with very few exceptions, is a, b, ab, and hic, +haec, hoc; and their knowledge of science is, three times one is three; +and this is more than sufficient to have enabled them, had they lived +at the time, to have written all the books of the New Testament. + +As the opportunities of forgery were greater, so also was the +inducement. A man could gain no advantage by writing under the name of +Homer or Euclid; if he could write equal to them, it would be better +that he wrote under his own name; if inferior, he could not succeed. +Pride would prevent the former, and impossibility the latter. But with +respect to such books as compose the New Testament, all the inducements +were on the side of forgery. The best imagined history that could have +been made, at the distance of two or three hundred years after the +time, could not have passed for an original under the name of the real +writer; the only chance of success lay in forgery; for the church +wanted pretence for its new doctrine, and truth and talents were out of +the question. + +But as it is not uncommon (as before observed) to relate stories of +persons walking after they are dead, and of ghosts and apparitions of +such as have fallen by some violent or extraordinary means; and as the +people of that day were in the habit of believing such things, and of +the appearance of angels, and also of devils, and of their getting into +people’s insides, and shaking them like a fit of an ague, and of their +being cast out again as if by an emetic—(Mary Magdalene, the book of +Mark tells us had brought up, or been brought to bed of seven devils;) +it was nothing extraordinary that some story of this kind should get +abroad of the person called Jesus Christ, and become afterwards the +foundation of the four books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. +Each writer told a tale as he heard it, or thereabouts, and gave to his +book the name of the saint or the apostle whom tradition had given as +the eye-witness. It is only upon this ground that the contradictions in +those books can be accounted for; and if this be not the case, they are +downright impositions, lies, and forgeries, without even the apology of +credulity. + +That they have been written by a sort of half Jews, as the foregoing +quotations mention, is discernible enough. The frequent references made +to that chief assassin and impostor Moses, and to the men called +prophets, establishes this point; and, on the other hand, the church +has complimented the fraud, by admitting the Bible and the Testament to +reply to each other. Between the Christian-Jew and the +Christian-Gentile, the thing called a prophecy, and the thing +prophesied of, the type and the thing typified, the sign and the thing +signified, have been industriously rummaged up, and fitted together +like old locks and pick-lock keys. The story foolishly enough told of +Eve and the serpent, and naturally enough as to the enmity between men +and serpents (for the serpent always bites about the heel, because it +cannot reach higher, and the man always knocks the serpent about the +head, as the most effectual way to prevent its biting;) [“It shall +bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Gen. iii. +15.—Author.] this foolish story, I say, has been made into a prophecy, +a type, and a promise to begin with; and the lying imposition of Isaiah +to Ahaz, ‘That a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,’ as a sign that +Ahaz should conquer, when the event was that he was defeated (as +already noticed in the observations on the book of Isaiah), has been +perverted, and made to serve as a winder up. + +Jonah and the whale are also made into a sign and type. Jonah is Jesus, +and the whale is the grave; for it is said, (and they have made Christ +to say it of himself, Matt. xii. 40), “For as Jonah was three days and +three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be three +days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” But it happens, +awkwardly enough, that Christ, according to their own account, was but +one day and two nights in the grave; about 36 hours instead of 72; that +is, the Friday night, the Saturday, and the Saturday night; for they +say he was up on the Sunday morning by sunrise, or before. But as this +fits quite as well as the bite and the kick in Genesis, or the virgin +and her son in Isaiah, it will pass in the lump of orthodox +things.—Thus much for the historical part of the Testament and its +evidences. + +Epistles of Paul—The epistles ascribed to Paul, being fourteen in +number, almost fill up the remaining part of the Testament. Whether +those epistles were written by the person to whom they are ascribed is +a matter of no great importance, since that the writer, whoever he was, +attempts to prove his doctrine by argument. He does not pretend to have +been witness to any of the scenes told of the resurrection and the +ascension; and he declares that he had not believed them. + +The story of his being struck to the ground as he was journeying to +Damascus, has nothing in it miraculous or extraordinary; he escaped +with life, and that is more than many others have done, who have been +struck with lightning; and that he should lose his sight for three +days, and be unable to eat or drink during that time, is nothing more +than is common in such conditions. His companions that were with him +appear not to have suffered in the same manner, for they were well +enough to lead him the remainder of the journey; neither did they +pretend to have seen any vision. + +The character of the person called Paul, according to the accounts +given of him, has in it a great deal of violence and fanaticism; he had +persecuted with as much heat as he preached afterwards; the stroke he +had received had changed his thinking, without altering his +constitution; and either as a Jew or a Christian he was the same +zealot. Such men are never good moral evidences of any doctrine they +preach. They are always in extremes, as well of action as of belief. + +The doctrine he sets out to prove by argument, is the resurrection of +the same body: and he advances this as an evidence of immortality. But +so much will men differ in their manner of thinking, and in the +conclusions they draw from the same premises, that this doctrine of the +resurrection of the same body, so far from being an evidence of +immortality, appears to me to be an evidence against it; for if I have +already died in this body, and am raised again in the same body in +which I have died, it is presumptive evidence that I shall die again. +That resurrection no more secures me against the repetition of dying, +than an ague-fit, when past, secures me against another. To believe +therefore in immortality, I must have a more elevated idea than is +contained in the gloomy doctrine of the resurrection. + +Besides, as a matter of choice, as well as of hope, I had rather have a +better body and a more convenient form than the present. Every animal +in the creation excels us in something. The winged insects, without +mentioning doves or eagles, can pass over more space with greater ease +in a few minutes than man can in an hour. The glide of the smallest +fish, in proportion to its bulk, exceeds us in motion almost beyond +comparison, and without weariness. Even the sluggish snail can ascend +from the bottom of a dungeon, where man, by the want of that ability, +would perish; and a spider can launch itself from the top, as a playful +amusement. The personal powers of man are so limited, and his heavy +frame so little constructed to extensive enjoyment, that there is +nothing to induce us to wish the opinion of Paul to be true. It is too +little for the magnitude of the scene, too mean for the sublimity of +the subject. + +But all other arguments apart, the consciousness of existence is the +only conceivable idea we can have of another life, and the continuance +of that consciousness is immortality. The consciousness of existence, +or the knowing that we exist, is not necessarily confined to the same +form, nor to the same matter, even in this life. + +We have not in all cases the same form, nor in any case the same +matter, that composed our bodies twenty or thirty years ago; and yet we +are conscious of being the same persons. Even legs and arms, which make +up almost half the human frame, are not necessary to the consciousness +of existence. These may be lost or taken away and the full +consciousness of existence remain; and were their place supplied by +wings, or other appendages, we cannot conceive that it could alter our +consciousness of existence. In short, we know not how much, or rather +how little, of our composition it is, and how exquisitely fine that +little is, that creates in us this consciousness of existence; and all +beyond that is like the pulp of a peach, distinct and separate from the +vegetative speck in the kernel. + +Who can say by what exceeding fine action of fine matter it is that a +thought is produced in what we call the mind? and yet that thought when +produced, as I now produce the thought I am writing, is capable of +becoming immortal, and is the only production of man that has that +capacity. + +Statues of brass and marble will perish; and statues made in imitation +of them are not the same statues, nor the same workmanship, any more +than the copy of a picture is the same picture. But print and reprint a +thought a thousand times over, and that with materials of any kind, +carve it in wood, or engrave it on stone, the thought is eternally and +identically the same thought in every case. It has a capacity of +unimpaired existence, unaffected by change of matter, and is +essentially distinct, and of a nature different from every thing else +that we know of, or can conceive. If then the thing produced has in +itself a capacity of being immortal, it is more than a token that the +power that produced it, which is the self-same thing as consciousness +of existence, can be immortal also; and that as independently of the +matter it was first connected with, as the thought is of the printing +or writing it first appeared in. The one idea is not more difficult to +believe than the other; and we can see that one is true. + +That the consciousness of existence is not dependent on the same form +or the same matter, is demonstrated to our senses in the works of the +creation, as far as our senses are capable of receiving that +demonstration. A very numerous part of the animal creation preaches to +us, far better than Paul, the belief of a life hereafter. Their little +life resembles an earth and a heaven, a present and a future state; and +comprises, if it may be so expressed, immortality in miniature. + +The most beautiful parts of the creation to our eye are the winged +insects, and they are not so originally. They acquire that form and +that inimitable brilliancy by progressive changes. The slow and +creeping caterpillar worm of to day, passes in a few days to a torpid +figure, and a state resembling death; and in the next change comes +forth in all the miniature magnificence of life, a splendid butterfly. +No resemblance of the former creature remains; every thing is changed; +all his powers are new, and life is to him another thing. We cannot +conceive that the consciousness of existence is not the same in this +state of the animal as before; why then must I believe that the +resurrection of the same body is necessary to continue to me the +consciousness of existence hereafter? + +In the former part of ‘The Age of Reason.’ I have called the creation +the true and only real word of God; and this instance, or this text, in +the book of creation, not only shows to us that this thing may be so, +but that it is so; and that the belief of a future state is a rational +belief, founded upon facts visible in the creation: for it is not more +difficult to believe that we shall exist hereafter in a better state +and form than at present, than that a worm should become a butterfly, +and quit the dunghill for the atmosphere, if we did not know it as a +fact. + +As to the doubtful jargon ascribed to Paul in 1 Corinthians xv., which +makes part of the burial service of some Christian sectaries, it is as +destitute of meaning as the tolling of a bell at the funeral; it +explains nothing to the understanding, it illustrates nothing to the +imagination, but leaves the reader to find any meaning if he can. “All +flesh,” says he, “is not the same flesh. There is one flesh of men, +another of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.” And what +then? nothing. A cook could have said as much. “There are also,” says +he, “bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial; the glory of the +celestial is one and the glory of the terrestrial is the other.” And +what then? nothing. And what is the difference? nothing that he has +told. “There is,” says he, “one glory of the sun, and another glory of +the moon, and another glory of the stars.” And what then? nothing; +except that he says that one star differeth from another star in glory, +instead of distance; and he might as well have told us that the moon +did not shine so bright as the sun. All this is nothing better than the +jargon of a conjuror, who picks up phrases he does not understand to +confound the credulous people who come to have their fortune told. +Priests and conjurors are of the same trade. + +Sometimes Paul affects to be a naturalist, and to prove his system of +resurrection from the principles of vegetation. “Thou fool” says he, +“that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die.” To which one +might reply in his own language, and say, Thou fool, Paul, that which +thou sowest is not quickened except it die not; for the grain that dies +in the ground never does, nor can vegetate. It is only the living +grains that produce the next crop. But the metaphor, in any point of +view, is no simile. It is succession, and [not] resurrection. + +The progress of an animal from one state of being to another, as from a +worm to a butterfly, applies to the case; but this of a grain does not, +and shows Paul to have been what he says of others, a fool. + +Whether the fourteen epistles ascribed to Paul were written by him or +not, is a matter of indifference; they are either argumentative or +dogmatical; and as the argument is defective, and the dogmatical part +is merely presumptive, it signifies not who wrote them. And the same +may be said for the remaining parts of the Testament. It is not upon +the Epistles, but upon what is called the Gospel, contained in the four +books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and upon the pretended +prophecies, that the theory of the church, calling itself the Christian +Church, is founded. The Epistles are dependant upon those, and must +follow their fate; for if the story of Jesus Christ be fabulous, all +reasoning founded upon it, as a supposed truth, must fall with it. + +We know from history, that one of the principal leaders of this church, +Athanasius, lived at the time the New Testament was formed; [Athanasius +died, according to the Church chronology, in the year 371—Author.] and +we know also, from the absurd jargon he has left us under the name of a +creed, the character of the men who formed the New Testament; and we +know also from the same history that the authenticity of the books of +which it is composed was denied at the time. It was upon the vote of +such as Athanasius that the Testament was decreed to be the word of +God; and nothing can present to us a more strange idea than that of +decreeing the word of God by vote. Those who rest their faith upon such +authority put man in the place of God, and have no true foundation for +future happiness. Credulity, however, is not a crime, but it becomes +criminal by resisting conviction. It is strangling in the womb of the +conscience the efforts it makes to ascertain truth. We should never +force belief upon ourselves in any thing. + +I here close the subject on the Old Testament and the New. The evidence +I have produced to prove them forgeries, is extracted from the books +themselves, and acts, like a two-edge sword, either way. If the +evidence be denied, the authenticity of the Scriptures is denied with +it, for it is Scripture evidence: and if the evidence be admitted, the +authenticity of the books is disproved. The contradictory +impossibilities, contained in the Old Testament and the New, put them +in the case of a man who swears for and against. Either evidence +convicts him of perjury, and equally destroys reputation. + +Should the Bible and the Testament hereafter fall, it is not that I +have done it. I have done no more than extracted the evidence from the +confused mass of matters with which it is mixed, and arranged that +evidence in a point of light to be clearly seen and easily +comprehended; and, having done this, I leave the reader to judge for +himself, as I have judged for myself. + + + + +CHAPTER III. +CONCLUSION + + +In the former part of ‘The Age of Reason’ I have spoken of the three +frauds, mystery, miracle, and Prophecy; and as I have seen nothing in +any of the answers to that work that in the least affects what I have +there said upon those subjects, I shall not encumber this Second Part +with additions that are not necessary. + +I have spoken also in the same work upon what is celled revelation, and +have shown the absurd misapplication of that term to the books of the +Old Testament and the New; for certainly revelation is out of the +question in reciting any thing of which man has been the actor or the +witness. That which man has done or seen, needs no revelation to tell +him he has done it, or seen it—for he knows it already—nor to enable +him to tell it or to write it. It is ignorance, or imposition, to apply +the term revelation in such cases; yet the Bible and Testament are +classed under this fraudulent description of being all revelation. + +Revelation then, so far as the term has relation between God and man, +can only be applied to something which God reveals of his will to man; +but though the power of the Almighty to make such a communication is +necessarily admitted, because to that power all things are possible, +yet, the thing so revealed (if any thing ever was revealed, and which, +by the bye, it is impossible to prove) is revelation to the person only +to whom it is made. His account of it to another is not revelation; and +whoever puts faith in that account, puts it in the man from whom the +account comes; and that man may have been deceived, or may have dreamed +it; or he may be an impostor and may lie. There is no possible +criterion whereby to judge of the truth of what he tells; for even the +morality of it would be no proof of revelation. In all such cases, the +proper answer should be, “When it is revealed to me, I will believe it +to be revelation; but it is not and cannot be incumbent upon me to +believe it to be revelation before; neither is it proper that I should +take the word of man as the word of God, and put man in the place of +God.” This is the manner in which I have spoken of revelation in the +former part of The Age of Reason; and which, whilst it reverentially +admits revelation as a possible thing, because, as before said, to the +Almighty all things are possible, it prevents the imposition of one man +upon another, and precludes the wicked use of pretended revelation. + +But though, speaking for myself, I thus admit the possibility of +revelation, I totally disbelieve that the Almighty ever did communicate +any thing to man, by any mode of speech, in any language, or by any +kind of vision, or appearance, or by any means which our senses are +capable of receiving, otherwise than by the universal display of +himself in the works of the creation, and by that repugnance we feel in +ourselves to bad actions, and disposition to good ones. [A fair +parallel of the then unknown aphorism of Kant: “Two things fill the +soul with wonder and reverence, increasing evermore as I meditate more +closely upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within +me.” (Kritik derpraktischen Vernunfe, 1788). Kant’s religious +utterances at the beginning of the French Revolution brought on him a +royal mandate of silence, because he had worked out from “the moral law +within” a principle of human equality precisely similar to that which +Paine had derived from his Quaker doctrine of the “inner light” of +every man. About the same time Paine’s writings were suppressed in +England. Paine did not understand German, but Kant, though always +independent in the formation of his opinions, was evidently well +acquainted with the literature of the Revolution, in America, England, +and France.—Editor.] + +The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the +greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race have had their +origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has +been the most dishonourable belief against the character of the +divinity, the most destructive to morality, and the peace and happiness +of man, that ever was propagated since man began to exist. It is +better, far better, that we admitted, if it were possible, a thousand +devils to roam at large, and to preach publicly the doctrine of devils, +if there were any such, than that we permitted one such impostor and +monster as Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and the Bible prophets, to come with +the pretended word of God in his mouth, and have credit among us. + +Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, +women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody +persecutions, and tortures unto death and religious wars, that since +that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but +from this impious thing called revealed religion, and this monstrous +belief that God has spoken to man? The lies of the Bible have been the +cause of the one, and the lies of the Testament [of] the other. + +Some Christians pretend that Christianity was not established by the +sword; but of what period of time do they speak? It was impossible that +twelve men could begin with the sword: they had not the power; but no +sooner were the professors of Christianity sufficiently powerful to +employ the sword than they did so, and the stake and faggot too; and +Mahomet could not do it sooner. By the same spirit that Peter cut off +the ear of the high priest’s servant (if the story be true) he would +cut off his head, and the head of his master, had he been able. Besides +this, Christianity grounds itself originally upon the [Hebrew] Bible, +and the Bible was established altogether by the sword, and that in the +worst use of it—not to terrify, but to extirpate. The Jews made no +converts: they butchered all. The Bible is the sire of the [New] +Testament, and both are called the word of God. The Christians read +both books; the ministers preach from both books; and this thing called +Christianity is made up of both. It is then false to say that +Christianity was not established by the sword. + +The only sect that has not persecuted are the Quakers; and the only +reason that can be given for it is, that they are rather Deists than +Christians. They do not believe much about Jesus Christ, and they call +the scriptures a dead letter. [This is an interesting and correct +testimony as to the beliefs of the earlier Quakers, one of whom was +Paine’s father.—Editor.] Had they called them by a worse name, they had +been nearer the truth. + +It is incumbent on every man who reverences the character of the +Creator, and who wishes to lessen the catalogue of artificial miseries, +and remove the cause that has sown persecutions thick among mankind, to +expel all ideas of a revealed religion as a dangerous heresy, and an +impious fraud. What is it that we have learned from this pretended +thing called revealed religion? Nothing that is useful to man, and +every thing that is dishonourable to his Maker. What is it the Bible +teaches us?—repine, cruelty, and murder. What is it the Testament +teaches us?—to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a +woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is +called faith. + +As to the fragments of morality that are irregularly and thinly +scattered in those books, they make no part of this pretended thing, +revealed religion. They are the natural dictates of conscience, and the +bonds by which society is held together, and without which it cannot +exist; and are nearly the same in all religions, and in all societies. +The Testament teaches nothing new upon this subject, and where it +attempts to exceed, it becomes mean and ridiculous. The doctrine of not +retaliating injuries is much better expressed in Proverbs, which is a +collection as well from the Gentiles as the Jews, than it is in the +Testament. It is there said, (Xxv. 2 I) “If thine enemy be hungry, give +him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:” +[According to what is called Christ’s sermon on the mount, in the book +of Matthew, where, among some other [and] good things, a great deal of +this feigned morality is introduced, it is there expressly said, that +the doctrine of forbearance, or of not retaliating injuries, was not +any part of the doctrine of the Jews; but as this doctrine is found in +“Proverbs,” it must, according to that statement, have been copied from +the Gentiles, from whom Christ had learned it. Those men whom Jewish +and Christian idolators have abusively called heathen, had much better +and clearer ideas of justice and morality than are to be found in the +Old Testament, so far as it is Jewish, or in the New. The answer of +Solon on the question, “Which is the most perfect popular govemment,” +has never been exceeded by any man since his time, as containing a +maxim of political morality, “That,” says he, “where the least injury +done to the meanest individual, is considered as an insult on the whole +constitution.” Solon lived about 500 years before Christ.—Author.] but +when it is said, as in the Testament, “If a man smite thee on the right +cheek, turn to him the other also,” it is assassinating the dignity of +forbearance, and sinking man into a spaniel. + +Loving, of enemies is another dogma of feigned morality, and has +besides no meaning. It is incumbent on man, as a moralist, that he does +not revenge an injury; and it is equally as good in a political sense, +for there is no end to retaliation; each retaliates on the other, and +calls it justice: but to love in proportion to the injury, if it could +be done, would be to offer a premium for a crime. Besides, the word +enemies is too vague and general to be used in a moral maxim, which +ought always to be clear and defined, like a proverb. If a man be the +enemy of another from mistake and prejudice, as in the case of +religious opinions, and sometimes in politics, that man is different to +an enemy at heart with a criminal intention; and it is incumbent upon +us, and it contributes also to our own tranquillity, that we put the +best construction upon a thing that it will bear. But even this +erroneous motive in him makes no motive for love on the other part; and +to say that we can love voluntarily, and without a motive, is morally +and physically impossible. + +Morality is injured by prescribing to it duties that, in the first +place, are impossible to be performed, and if they could be would be +productive of evil; or, as before said, be premiums for crime. The +maxim of doing as we would be done unto does not include this strange +doctrine of loving enemies; for no man expects to be loved himself for +his crime or for his enmity. + +Those who preach this doctrine of loving their enemies, are in general +the greatest persecutors, and they act consistently by so doing; for +the doctrine is hypocritical, and it is natural that hypocrisy should +act the reverse of what it preaches. For my own part, I disown the +doctrine, and consider it as a feigned or fabulous morality; yet the +man does not exist that can say I have persecuted him, or any man, or +any set of men, either in the American Revolution, or in the French +Revolution; or that I have, in any case, returned evil for evil. But it +is not incumbent on man to reward a bad action with a good one, or to +return good for evil; and wherever it is done, it is a voluntary act, +and not a duty. It is also absurd to suppose that such doctrine can +make any part of a revealed religion. We imitate the moral character of +the Creator by forbearing with each other, for he forbears with all; +but this doctrine would imply that he loved man, not in proportion as +he was good, but as he was bad. + +If we consider the nature of our condition here, we must see there is +no occasion for such a thing as revealed religion. What is it we want +to know? Does not the creation, the universe we behold, preach to us +the existence of an Almighty power, that governs and regulates the +whole? And is not the evidence that this creation holds out to our +senses infinitely stronger than any thing we can read in a book, that +any imposter might make and call the word of God? As for morality, the +knowledge of it exists in every man’s conscience. + +Here we are. The existence of an Almighty power is sufficiently +demonstrated to us, though we cannot conceive, as it is impossible we +should, the nature and manner of its existence. We cannot conceive how +we came here ourselves, and yet we know for a fact that we are here. We +must know also, that the power that called us into being, can if he +please, and when he pleases, call us to account for the manner in which +we have lived here; and therefore without seeking any other motive for +the belief, it is rational to believe that he will, for we know +beforehand that he can. The probability or even possibility of the +thing is all that we ought to know; for if we knew it as a fact, we +should be the mere slaves of terror; our belief would have no merit, +and our best actions no virtue. + +Deism then teaches us, without the possibility of being deceived, all +that is necessary or proper to be known. The creation is the Bible of +the deist. He there reads, in the hand-writing of the Creator himself, +the certainty of his existence, and the immutability of his power; and +all other Bibles and Testaments are to him forgeries. The probability +that we may be called to account hereafter, will, to reflecting minds, +have the influence of belief; for it is not our belief or disbelief +that can make or unmake the fact. As this is the state we are in, and +which it is proper we should be in, as free agents, it is the fool +only, and not the philosopher, nor even the prudent man, that will live +as if there were no God. + +But the belief of a God is so weakened by being mixed with the strange +fable of the Christian creed, and with the wild adventures related in +the Bible, and the obscurity and obscene nonsense of the Testament, +that the mind of man is bewildered as in a fog. Viewing all these +things in a confused mass, he confounds fact with fable; and as he +cannot believe all, he feels a disposition to reject all. But the +belief of a God is a belief distinct from all other things, and ought +not to be confounded with any. The notion of a Trinity of Gods has +enfeebled the belief of one God. A multiplication of beliefs acts as a +division of belief; and in proportion as anything is divided, it is +weakened. + +Religion, by such means, becomes a thing of form instead of fact; of +notion instead of principle: morality is banished to make room for an +imaginary thing called faith, and this faith has its origin in a +supposed debauchery; a man is preached instead of a God; an execution +is an object for gratitude; the preachers daub themselves with the +blood, like a troop of assassins, and pretend to admire the brilliancy +it gives them; they preach a humdrum sermon on the merits of the +execution; then praise Jesus Christ for being executed, and condemn the +Jews for doing it. + +A man, by hearing all this nonsense lumped and preached together, +confounds the God of the Creation with the imagined God of the +Christians, and lives as if there were none. + +Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none +more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant +to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called +Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and +too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces +only atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the +purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; +but so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing +here or hereafter. + +The only religion that has not been invented, and that has in it every +evidence of divine originality, is pure and simple deism. It must have +been the first and will probably be the last that man believes. But +pure and simple deism does not answer the purpose of despotic +governments. They cannot lay hold of religion as an engine but by +mixing it with human inventions, and making their own authority a part; +neither does it answer the avarice of priests, but by incorporating +themselves and their functions with it, and becoming, like the +government, a party in the system. It is this that forms the otherwise +mysterious connection of church and state; the church human, and the +state tyrannic. + +Were a man impressed as fully and strongly as he ought to be with the +belief of a God, his moral life would be regulated by the force of +belief; he would stand in awe of God, and of himself, and would not do +the thing that could not be concealed from either. To give this belief +the full opportunity of force, it is necessary that it acts alone. This +is deism. + +But when, according to the Christian Trinitarian scheme, one part of +God is represented by a dying man, and another part, called the Holy +Ghost, by a flying pigeon, it is impossible that belief can attach +itself to such wild conceits. [The book called the book of Matthew, +says, (iii. 16,) that the Holy Ghost descended in the shape of a dove. +It might as well have said a goose; the creatures are equally harmless, +and the one is as much a nonsensical lie as the other. Acts, ii. 2, 3, +says, that it descended in a mighty rushing wind, in the shape of +cloven tongues: perhaps it was cloven feet. Such absurd stuff is fit +only for tales of witches and wizards.—Author.] + +It has been the scheme of the Christian church, and of all the other +invented systems of religion, to hold man in ignorance of the Creator, +as it is of government to hold him in ignorance of his rights. The +systems of the one are as false as those of the other, and are +calculated for mutual support. The study of theology as it stands in +Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; +it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no +data; it can demonstrate nothing; and admits of no conclusion. Not any +thing can be studied as a science without our being in possession of +the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case +with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing. + +Instead then of studying theology, as is now done, out of the Bible and +Testament, the meanings of which books are always controverted, and the +authenticity of which is disproved, it is necessary that we refer to +the Bible of the creation. The principles we discover there are +eternal, and of divine origin: they are the foundation of all the +science that exists in the world, and must be the foundation of +theology. + +We can know God only through his works. We cannot have a conception of +any one attribute, but by following some principle that leads to it. We +have only a confused idea of his power, if we have not the means of +comprehending something of its immensity. We can have no idea of his +wisdom, but by knowing the order and manner in which it acts. The +principles of science lead to this knowledge; for the Creator of man is +the Creator of science, and it is through that medium that man can see +God, as it were, face to face. + +Could a man be placed in a situation, and endowed with power of vision +to behold at one view, and to contemplate deliberately, the structure +of the universe, to mark the movements of the several planets, the +cause of their varying appearances, the unerring order in which they +revolve, even to the remotest comet, their connection and dependence on +each other, and to know the system of laws established by the Creator, +that governs and regulates the whole; he would then conceive, far +beyond what any church theology can teach him, the power, the wisdom, +the vastness, the munificence of the Creator. He would then see that +all the knowledge man has of science, and that all the mechanical arts +by which he renders his situation comfortable here, are derived from +that source: his mind, exalted by the scene, and convinced by the fact, +would increase in gratitude as it increased in knowledge: his religion +or his worship would become united with his improvement as a man: any +employment he followed that had connection with the principles of the +creation,—as everything of agriculture, of science, and of the +mechanical arts, has,—would teach him more of God, and of the gratitude +he owes to him, than any theological Christian sermon he now hears. +Great objects inspire great thoughts; great munificence excites great +gratitude; but the grovelling tales and doctrines of the Bible and the +Testament are fit only to excite contempt. + +Though man cannot arrive, at least in this life, at the actual scene I +have described, he can demonstrate it, because he has knowledge of the +principles upon which the creation is constructed. We know that the +greatest works can be represented in model, and that the universe can +be represented by the same means. The same principles by which we +measure an inch or an acre of ground will measure to millions in +extent. A circle of an inch diameter has the same geometrical +properties as a circle that would circumscribe the universe. The same +properties of a triangle that will demonstrate upon paper the course of +a ship, will do it on the ocean; and, when applied to what are called +the heavenly bodies, will ascertain to a minute the time of an eclipse, +though those bodies are millions of miles distant from us. This +knowledge is of divine origin; and it is from the Bible of the creation +that man has learned it, and not from the stupid Bible of the church, +that teaches man nothing. [The Bible-makers have undertaken to give us, +in the first chapter of Genesis, an account of the creation; and in +doing this they have demonstrated nothing but their ignorance. They +make there to have been three days and three nights, evenings and +mornings, before there was any sun; when it is the presence or absence +of the sun that is the cause of day and night—and what is called his +rising and setting that of morning and evening. Besides, it is a +puerile and pitiful idea, to suppose the Almighty to say, “Let there be +light.” It is the imperative manner of speaking that a conjuror uses +when he says to his cups and balls, Presto, be gone—and most probably +has been taken from it, as Moses and his rod is a conjuror and his +wand. Longinus calls this expression the sublime; and by the same rule +the conjurer is sublime too; for the manner of speaking is expressively +and grammatically the same. When authors and critics talk of the +sublime, they see not how nearly it borders on the ridiculous. The +sublime of the critics, like some parts of Edmund Burke’s sublime and +beautiful, is like a windmill just visible in a fog, which imagination +might distort into a flying mountain, or an archangel, or a flock of +wild geese.—Author.] + +All the knowledge man has of science and of machinery, by the aid of +which his existence is rendered comfortable upon earth, and without +which he would be scarcely distinguishable in appearance and condition +from a common animal, comes from the great machine and structure of the +universe. The constant and unwearied observations of our ancestors upon +the movements and revolutions of the heavenly bodies, in what are +supposed to have been the early ages of the world, have brought this +knowledge upon earth. It is not Moses and the prophets, nor Jesus +Christ, nor his apostles, that have done it. The Almighty is the great +mechanic of the creation, the first philosopher, and original teacher +of all science. Let us then learn to reverence our master, and not +forget the labours of our ancestors. + +Had we, at this day, no knowledge of machinery, and were it possible +that man could have a view, as I have before described, of the +structure and machinery of the universe, he would soon conceive the +idea of constructing some at least of the mechanical works we now have; +and the idea so conceived would progressively advance in practice. Or +could a model of the universe, such as is called an orrery, be +presented before him and put in motion, his mind would arrive at the +same idea. Such an object and such a subject would, whilst it improved +him in knowledge useful to himself as a man and a member of society, as +well as entertaining, afford far better matter for impressing him with +a knowledge of, and a belief in the Creator, and of the reverence and +gratitude that man owes to him, than the stupid texts of the Bible and +the Testament, from which, be the talents of the preacher; what they +may, only stupid sermons can be preached. If man must preach, let him +preach something that is edifying, and from the texts that are known to +be true. + +The Bible of the creation is inexhaustible in texts. Every part of +science, whether connected with the geometry of the universe, with the +systems of animal and vegetable life, or with the properties of +inanimate matter, is a text as well for devotion as for philosophy—for +gratitude, as for human improvement. It will perhaps be said, that if +such a revolution in the system of religion takes place, every preacher +ought to be a philosopher. Most certainly, and every house of devotion +a school of science. + +It has been by wandering from the immutable laws of science, and the +light of reason, and setting up an invented thing called “revealed +religion,” that so many wild and blasphemous conceits have been formed +of the Almighty. The Jews have made him the assassin of the human +species, to make room for the religion of the Jews. The Christians have +made him the murderer of himself, and the founder of a new religion to +supersede and expel the Jewish religion. And to find pretence and +admission for these things, they must have supposed his power or his +wisdom imperfect, or his will changeable; and the changeableness of the +will is the imperfection of the judgement. The philosopher knows that +the laws of the Creator have never changed, with respect either to the +principles of science, or the properties of matter. Why then is it to +be supposed they have changed with respect to man? + +I here close the subject. I have shown in all the foregoing parts of +this work that the Bible and Testament are impositions and forgeries; +and I leave the evidence I have produced in proof of it to be refuted, +if any one can do it; and I leave the ideas that are suggested in the +conclusion of the work to rest on the mind of the reader; certain as I +am that when opinions are free, either in matters of govemment or +religion, truth will finally and powerfully prevail. + +END OF PART II + + + + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WRITINGS OF THOMAS PAINE *** + +***** This file should be named 3743-0.txt or 3743-0.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/3/7/4/3743/ + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will +be renamed. + +Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright +law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, +so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the +United States without permission and without paying copyright +royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part +of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm +concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, +and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following +the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use +of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for +copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very +easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation +of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project +Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may +do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected +by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark +license, especially commercial redistribution. + +START: FULL LICENSE + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full +Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at +www.gutenberg.org/license. + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or +destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your +possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a +Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound +by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the +person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph +1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this +agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the +Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection +of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual +works in the collection are in the public domain in the United +States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the +United States and you are located in the United States, we do not +claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, +displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as +all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope +that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting +free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm +works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the +Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily +comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the +same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when +you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are +in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, +check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this +agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, +distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any +other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no +representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any +country other than the United States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other +immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear +prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work +on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, +performed, viewed, copied or distributed: + + This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and + most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no + restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it + under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this + eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the + United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where + you are located before using this eBook. + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is +derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not +contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the +copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in +the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are +redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply +either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or +obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm +trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any +additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms +will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works +posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the +beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including +any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access +to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format +other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official +version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website +(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense +to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means +of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain +Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the +full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +provided that: + +* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed + to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has + agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid + within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are + legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty + payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in + Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg + Literary Archive Foundation." + +* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all + copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue + all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm + works. + +* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of + any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of + receipt of the work. + +* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than +are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing +from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of +the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set +forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project +Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may +contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate +or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other +intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or +other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or +cannot be read by your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium +with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you +with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in +lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person +or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second +opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If +the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing +without further opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO +OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT +LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of +damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement +violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the +agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or +limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or +unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the +remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in +accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the +production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, +including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of +the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this +or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or +additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any +Defect you cause. + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of +computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It +exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations +from people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future +generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see +Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at +www.gutenberg.org + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by +U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, +Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up +to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website +and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without +widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND +DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular +state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To +donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project +Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be +freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and +distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of +volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in +the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not +necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper +edition. + +Most people start at our website which has the main PG search +facility: www.gutenberg.org + +This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + |