diff options
Diffstat (limited to '3743-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 3743-h/3743-h.htm | 8252 |
1 files changed, 8252 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/3743-h/3743-h.htm b/3743-h/3743-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ff7689b --- /dev/null +++ b/3743-h/3743-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,8252 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" +"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> +<title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Writings of Thomas Paine, Volume IV., by Thomas Paine</title> + +<style type="text/css"> + +body { margin-left: 20%; + margin-right: 20%; + text-align: justify; } + +h1, h2, h3, h4, h5 {text-align: center; font-style: normal; font-weight: +normal; line-height: 1.5; margin-top: .5em; margin-bottom: .5em;} + +h1 {font-size: 300%; + margin-top: 0.6em; + margin-bottom: 0.6em; + letter-spacing: 0.12em; + word-spacing: 0.2em; + text-indent: 0em;} +h2 {font-size: 150%; margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 1em;} +h3 {font-size: 130%; margin-top: 1em;} +h4 {font-size: 120%;} +h5 {font-size: 110%;} + +.no-break {page-break-before: avoid;} /* for epubs */ + +div.chapter {page-break-before: always; margin-top: 4em;} + +hr {width: 80%; margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 2em;} + +p {text-indent: 1em; + margin-top: 0.25em; + margin-bottom: 0.25em; } + +p.poem {text-indent: 0%; + margin-left: 10%; + font-size: 90%; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; } + +a:link {color:blue; text-decoration:none} +a:visited {color:blue; text-decoration:none} +a:hover {color:red} + +</style> + +</head> + +<body> + +<div style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold;'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Writings of Thomas Paine, Volume IV., by Thomas Paine</div> +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +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 <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. 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. +</div> +<div style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Title: The Writings of Thomas Paine, Volume IV.<br /> +1794-1796.</div> +<div style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: Thomas Paine</div> +<div style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Editor: Moncure Daniel Conway</div> +<div style='display:block;margin:1em 0'>Release Date: August 14, 2001 [eBook #3743]<br /> +[Most recently updated: March 20, 2021]</div> +<div style='display:block;margin:1em 0'>Language: English</div> +<div style='display:block;margin:1em 0'>Character set encoding: UTF-8</div> +<div style='display:block; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Produced by: Norman M. Wolcott and David Widger</div> +<div style='margin-top:2em;margin-bottom:4em'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WRITINGS OF THOMAS PAINE ***</div> + +<h1>The Writings of Thomas Paine</h1> + +<h3>The Age of Reason — Part I and II</h3> + +<h2 class="no-break">by Thomas Paine</h2> + +<h3>Collected And Edited By Moncure Daniel Conway</h3> + +<h2>VOLUME IV.</h2> + +<h3>(1796)</h3> + +<hr /> + +<h2>Contents</h2> + +<table summary="" style=""> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap00">EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION</a><br /><br /></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#part01"><b>THE AGE OF REASON — PART I</b></a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap01">CHAPTER I. THE AUTHOR’S PROFESSION OF FAITH</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap02">CHAPTER II. OF MISSIONS AND REVELATIONS</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap03">CHAPTER III. CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS HISTORY</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap04">CHAPTER IV. OF THE BASES OF CHRISTIANITY</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap05">CHAPTER V. EXAMINATION IN DETAIL OF THE PRECEDING BASES</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap06">CHAPTER VI. OF THE TRUE THEOLOGY</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap07">CHAPTER VII. EXAMINATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap08">CHAPTER VIII. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap09">CHAPTER IX. IN WHAT THE TRUE REVELATION CONSISTS</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap10">CHAPTER X. CONCERNING GOD, AND THE LIGHTS CAST ON HIS EXISTENCE AND ATTRIBUTES BY THE BIBLE</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap11">CHAPTER XI. OF THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHRISTIANS; AND THE TRUE THEOLOGY</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap12">CHAPTER XII. THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANISM ON EDUCATION; PROPOSED REFORMS</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap13">CHAPTER XIII. COMPARISON OF CHRISTIANISM WITH THE RELIGIOUS IDEAS INSPIRED BY NATURE</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap14">CHAPTER XIV. SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap15">CHAPTER XV. ADVANTAGES OF THE EXISTENCE OF MANY WORLDS IN EACH SOLAR SYSTEM</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap16">CHAPTER XVI. APPLICATION OF THE PRECEDING TO THE SYSTEM OF THE CHRISTIANS</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap17">CHAPTER XVII. OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED IN ALL TIME, AND ALMOST UNIVERSALLY, TO DECEIVE THE PEOPLES</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap18">RECAPITULATION</a><br /><br /></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#part02"><b>THE AGE OF REASON — PART II</b></a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap19">PREFACE</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap20">CHAPTER I. THE OLD TESTAMENT</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap21">CHAPTER II. THE NEW TESTAMENT</a></td> +</tr> + +<tr> +<td> <a href="#chap22">CHAPTER III. CONCLUSION</a></td> +</tr> + +</table> + +<hr /> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap00"></a>EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION</h2> + +<h3>WITH SOME RESULTS OF RECENT RESEARCHES.</h3> + +<p> +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!” +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p> +“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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.) +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p> +“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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p> +“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. +</p> + +<p> +“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. +</p> + +<p> +“T. PAINE. +</p> + +<p> +“PARIS, December 4, 1795” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +“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. +</p> + +<p> +“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. +</p> + +<p> +“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. +</p> + +<p> +“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. +</p> + +<p> +“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. +</p> + +<p> +“Your friend, etc., +</p> + +<p> +“THOMAS PAINE.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="part01"></a>THE AGE OF REASON — PART I</h2> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap01"></a>CHAPTER I.<br /> +THE AUTHOR’S PROFESSION OF FAITH.</h2> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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? +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap02"></a>CHAPTER II.<br /> +OF MISSIONS AND REVELATIONS.</h2> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap03"></a>CHAPTER III.<br /> +CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS HISTORY. +</h2> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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)] +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap04"></a>CHAPTER IV.<br /> +OF THE BASES OF CHRISTIANITY.</h2> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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? +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap05"></a>CHAPTER V.<br /> +EXAMINATION IN DETAIL OF THE PRECEDING BASES.</h2> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap06"></a>CHAPTER VI.<br /> +OF THE TRUE THEOLOGY.</h2> + +<p> +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? +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap07"></a>CHAPTER VII.<br /> +EXAMINATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.</h2> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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:— +</p> + +<p class="poem"> +“Hear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth<br /> +’T is God himself that calls attention forth. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p class="poem"> +“O, that mine head were waters and mine eyes<br /> +Were fountains flowing like the liquid skies;<br /> +Then would I give the mighty flood release<br /> +And weep a deluge for the human race.”—Author.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap08"></a>CHAPTER VIII.<br /> +OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.</h2> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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? +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap09"></a>CHAPTER IX.<br /> +IN WHAT THE TRUE REVELATION CONSISTS.</h2> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap10"></a>CHAPTER X.<br /> +CONCERNING GOD, AND THE LIGHTS CAST ON HIS EXISTENCE AND ATTRIBUTES BY THE +BIBLE.</h2> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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? +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p class="poem"> +The spacious firmament on high,<br /> +With all the blue etherial sky,<br /> +And spangled heavens, a shining frame,<br /> +Their great original proclaim.<br /> +The unwearied sun, from day to day,<br /> +Does his Creator’s power display,<br /> +And publishes to every land<br /> +The work of an Almighty hand.<br /> +Soon as the evening shades prevail,<br /> +The moon takes up the wondrous tale,<br /> +And nightly to the list’ning earth<br /> +Repeats the story of her birth;<br /> +Whilst all the stars that round her burn,<br /> +And all the planets, in their turn,<br /> +Confirm the tidings as they roll,<br /> +And spread the truth from pole to pole.<br /> +What though in solemn silence all<br /> +Move round this dark terrestrial ball<br /> +What though no real voice, nor sound,<br /> +Amidst their radiant orbs be found,<br /> +In reason’s ear they all rejoice,<br /> +And utter forth a glorious voice,<br /> +Forever singing as they shine,<br /> +THE HAND THAT MADE US IS DIVINE. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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?” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap11"></a>CHAPTER XI.<br /> +OF THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHRISTIANS; AND THE TRUE THEOLOGY. +</h2> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +It may be said, that man can make or draw a triangle, and therefore a triangle +is an human invention. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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? +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap12"></a>CHAPTER XII.<br /> +THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANISM ON EDUCATION; PROPOSED REFORMS</h2> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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)] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap13"></a>CHAPTER XIII.<br /> +COMPARISON OF CHRISTIANISM WITH THE RELIGIOUS IDEAS INSPIRED BY NATURE</h2> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap14"></a>CHAPTER XIV.<br /> +SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE.</h2> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap15"></a>CHAPTER XV.<br /> +ADVANTAGES OF THE EXISTENCE OF MANY WORLDS IN EACH SOLAR SYSTEM</h2> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap16"></a>CHAPTER XVI.<br /> +APPLICATION OF THE PRECEDING TO THE SYSTEM OF THE CHRISTIANS</h2> + + +<p> +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! +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap17"></a>CHAPTER XVII.<br /> +OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED IN ALL TIME, AND ALMOST UNIVERSALLY, TO DECEIVE THE +PEOPLES</h2> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Those three means are Mystery, Miracle, and Prophecy, The first two are +incompatible with true religion, and the third ought always to be suspected. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +But before going further into this subject, it will be proper to inquire what +is to be understood by a miracle. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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? +</p> + +<p> +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? +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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! +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap18"></a>RECAPITULATION</h2> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="part02"></a>THE AGE OF REASON - PART II</h2> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap19"></a>PREFACE</h2> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p> +“Demander que Thomas Paine soit decrete d’accusation, pour +l’interet de l’Amerique autant que de la France.” +</p> + +<p> +[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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +THOMAS PAINE. October, 1795. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap20"></a>CHAPTER I.<br /> +THE OLD TESTAMENT</h2> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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? +</p> + +<p> +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? +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.) +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p> +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.’” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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! +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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? +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<pre xml:space="preserve"> +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. +</pre> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Having now dismissed Kings and Chronicles, I come to the next in course, the +book of Ezra. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +Last Two Verses of 2 Chronicles. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. *** +</p> + +<p> +First Three Verses of Ezra. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +*** 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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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? +</p> + +<p> +[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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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, +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +What then can we say of these prophets, but that they are impostors and liars? +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +[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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p class="poem"> +Poor children three devoured be,<br /> +That could not with him grapple;<br /> +And at one sup he eat them up,<br /> +As a man would eat an apple. +</p> + +<p> +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, +</p> + +<p> +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? +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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! +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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?” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap21"></a>CHAPTER II.<br /> +THE NEW TESTAMENT</h2> + +<p> +The New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon the prophecies of the Old; if +so, it must follow the fate of its foundation. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<pre xml:space="preserve"> + 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 +</pre> + +<p> +[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.] +</p> + +<p> +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? +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +The inscription is thus stated in those books: +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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? +</p> + +<p> +The accounts that are given of the circumstances, that they tell us attended +the crucifixion, are differently related in those four books. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +I come now to that part of the evidence in those books, that respects the +pretended appearance of Christ after this pretended resurrection. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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? +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +[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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.” +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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: +</p> + +<p> +[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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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? +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2><a name="chap22"></a>CHAPTER III.<br /> +CONCLUSION</h2> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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.] +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +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? +</p> + +<p> +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. +</p> + +<p> +END OF PART II +</p> + +</div><!--end chapter--> + +<div style='display:block;margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK WRITINGS OF THOMAS PAINE ***</div> +<div style='display:block;margin:1em 0;'>This file should be named 3743-h.htm or 3743-h.zip</div> +<div style='display:block;margin:1em 0;'>This and all associated files of various formats will be found in https://www.gutenberg.org/3/7/4/3743/</div> +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will +be renamed. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +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™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ +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. +</div> + +<div style='margin:0.83em 0; font-size:1.1em; text-align:center'>START: FULL LICENSE<br /> +<span style='font-size:smaller'>THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE<br /> +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</span> +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +To protect the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ License available with this file or online at +www.gutenberg.org/license. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ +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™ electronic works in your +possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a +Project Gutenberg™ 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. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +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™ 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™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this +agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ +electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the +Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection +of Project Gutenberg™ 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™ mission of promoting +free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ +works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the +Project Gutenberg™ 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™ License when +you share it without charge with others. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +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™ work. The Foundation makes no +representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any +country other than the United States. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other +immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear +prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ 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: +</div> + +<blockquote> + <div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> + 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 <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. 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. + </div> +</blockquote> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ 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™ +trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ 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™ License for all works +posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the +beginning of this work. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +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™ License. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +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™ work in a format +other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official +version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ 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™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works +provided that: +</div> + +<div style='margin-left:0.7em;'> + <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> + • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed + to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ 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.” + </div> + + <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> + • 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™ + 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™ + works. + </div> + + <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> + • 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. + </div> + + <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> + • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. + </div> +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project +Gutenberg™ 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™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set +forth in Section 3 below. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +1.F. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +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™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ +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. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +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™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg™ 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. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +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. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +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. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +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. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +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™ electronic works in +accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the +production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ +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™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or +additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any +Defect you cause. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +Project Gutenberg™ 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. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +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. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +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 +</div> + +<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +Project Gutenberg™ 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. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +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 <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate/">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +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. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +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. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +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 +</div> + +<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project +Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be +freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and +distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of +volunteer support. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +Project Gutenberg™ 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. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +Most people start at our website which has the main PG search +facility: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. +</div> + +<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> +This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, +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. +</div> + +</body> + +</html> + + |