{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_3743/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_3743","id":"gutenberg_3743","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3743","summary":null,"tags":["Atheism","Banned Books from Anne Haight's list","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Philosophy and religion","Political science","Rationalism"],"text":"The Writings of Thomas Paine\n\nThe Age of Reason \u2014 Part I and II\n\nby Thomas Paine\n\nCollected And Edited By Moncure Daniel Conway\n\nVOLUME IV.\n\n(1796)\n\n\nContents\n\n EDITOR\u2019S INTRODUCTION\n\n THE AGE OF REASON \u2014 PART I\n CHAPTER I. THE AUTHOR\u2019S PROFESSION OF FAITH\n CHAPTER II. OF MISSIONS AND REVELATIONS\n CHAPTER III. CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS HISTORY\n CHAPTER IV. OF THE BASES OF CHRISTIANITY\n CHAPTER V. EXAMINATION IN DETAIL OF THE PRECEDING BASES\n CHAPTER VI. OF THE TRUE THEOLOGY\n CHAPTER VII. EXAMINATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT\n CHAPTER VIII. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT\n CHAPTER IX. IN WHAT THE TRUE REVELATION CONSISTS\n CHAPTER X. CONCERNING GOD, AND THE LIGHTS CAST ON HIS EXISTENCE AND ATTRIBUTES BY THE BIBLE\n CHAPTER XI. OF THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHRISTIANS; AND THE TRUE THEOLOGY\n CHAPTER XII. THE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANISM ON EDUCATION; PROPOSED REFORMS\n CHAPTER XIII. COMPARISON OF CHRISTIANISM WITH THE RELIGIOUS IDEAS INSPIRED BY NATURE\n CHAPTER XIV. SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE\n CHAPTER XV. ADVANTAGES OF THE EXISTENCE OF MANY WORLDS IN EACH SOLAR SYSTEM\n CHAPTER XVI. APPLICATION OF THE PRECEDING TO THE SYSTEM OF THE CHRISTIANS\n CHAPTER XVII. OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED IN ALL TIME, AND ALMOST UNIVERSALLY, TO DECEIVE THE PEOPLES\n RECAPITULATION\n\n THE AGE OF REASON \u2014 PART II\n PREFACE\n CHAPTER I. THE OLD TESTAMENT\n CHAPTER II. THE NEW TESTAMENT\n CHAPTER III. CONCLUSION\n\n\n\n\nEDITOR\u2019S INTRODUCTION\n\nWITH SOME RESULTS OF RECENT RESEARCHES.\n\n\nIn the opening year, 1793, when revolutionary France had beheaded its\nking, the wrath turned next upon the King of kings, by whose grace\nevery tyrant claimed to reign. But eventualities had brought among them\na great English and American heart\u2014Thomas Paine. He had pleaded for\nLouis Capet\u2014\u201cKill the king but spare the man.\u201d Now he\npleaded,\u2014\u201cDisbelieve in the King of kings, but do not confuse with that\nidol the Father of Mankind!\u201d\n\nIn Paine\u2019s Preface to the Second Part of \u201cThe Age of Reason\u201d he\ndescribes himself as writing the First Part near the close of the year\n1793. \u201cI had not finished it more than six hours, in the state it has\nsince appeared, before a guard came about three in the morning, with an\norder signed by the two Committees of Public Safety and Surety General,\nfor putting me in arrestation.\u201d This was on the morning of December 28.\nBut it is necessary to weigh the words just quoted\u2014\u201cin the state it has\nsince appeared.\u201d For on August 5, 1794, Francois Lanthenas, in an\nappeal for Paine\u2019s liberation, wrote as follows: \u201cI deliver to Merlin\nde Thionville a copy of the last work of T. Payne [The Age of Reason],\nformerly our colleague, and in custody since the decree excluding\nforeigners from the national representation. This book was written by\nthe author in the beginning of the year \u201993 (old style). I undertook\nits translation before the revolution against priests, and it was\npublished in French about the same time. Couthon, to whom I sent it,\nseemed offended with me for having translated this work.\u201d\n\nUnder the frown of Couthon, one of the most atrocious colleagues of\nRobespierre, this early publication seems to have been so effectually\nsuppressed that no copy bearing that date, 1793, can be found in France\nor elsewhere. In Paine\u2019s letter to Samuel Adams, printed in the present\nvolume, he says that he had it translated into French, to stay the\nprogress of atheism, and that he endangered his life \u201cby opposing\natheism.\u201d The time indicated by Lanthenas as that in which he submitted\nthe work to Couthon would appear to be the latter part of March, 1793,\nthe fury against the priesthood having reached its climax in the\ndecrees against them of March 19 and 26. If the moral deformity of\nCouthon, even greater than that of his body, be remembered, and the\nreadiness with which death was inflicted for the most theoretical\nopinion not approved by the \u201cMountain,\u201d it will appear probable that\nthe offence given Couthon by Paine\u2019s book involved danger to him and\nhis translator. On May 31, when the Girondins were accused, the name of\nLanthenas was included, and he barely escaped; and on the same day\nDanton persuaded Paine not to appear in the Convention, as his life\nmight be in danger. Whether this was because of the \u201cAge of Reason,\u201d\nwith its fling at the \u201cGoddess Nature\u201d or not, the statements of author\nand translator are harmonized by the fact that Paine prepared the\nmanuscript, with considerable additions and changes, for publication in\nEnglish, as he has stated in the Preface to Part II.\n\nA comparison of the French and English versions, sentence by sentence,\nproved to me that the translation sent by Lanthenas to Merlin de\nThionville in 1794 is the same as that he sent to Couthon in 1793. This\ndiscovery was the means of recovering several interesting sentences of\nthe original work. I have given as footnotes translations of such\nclauses and phrases of the French work as appeared to be important.\nThose familiar with the translations of Lanthenas need not be reminded\nthat he was too much of a literalist to depart from the manuscript\nbefore him, and indeed he did not even venture to alter it in an\ninstance (presently considered) where it was obviously needed. Nor\nwould Lanthenas have omitted any of the paragraphs lacking in his\ntranslation. This original work was divided into seventeen chapters,\nand these I have restored, translating their headings into English. The\n\u201cAge of Reason\u201d is thus for the first time given to the world with\nnearly its original completeness.\n\nIt should be remembered that Paine could not have read the proof of his\n\u201cAge of Reason\u201d (Part I.) which went through the press while he was in\nprison. To this must be ascribed the permanence of some sentences as\nabbreviated in the haste he has described. A notable instance is the\ndropping out of his estimate of Jesus the words rendered by Lanthenas\n\u201ctrop peu imite, trop oublie, trop meconnu.\u201d The addition of these\nwords to Paine\u2019s tribute makes it the more notable that almost the only\nrecognition of the human character and life of Jesus by any theological\nwriter of that generation came from one long branded as an infidel.\n\nTo the inability of the prisoner to give his work any revision must be\nattributed the preservation in it of the singular error already alluded\nto, as one that Lanthenas, but for his extreme fidelity, would have\ncorrected. This is Paine\u2019s repeated mention of six planets, and\nenumeration of them, twelve years after the discovery of Uranus. Paine\nwas a devoted student of astronomy, and it cannot for a moment be\nsupposed that he had not participated in the universal welcome of\nHerschel\u2019s discovery. The omission of any allusion to it convinces me\nthat the astronomical episode was printed from a manuscript written\nbefore 1781, when Uranus was discovered. Unfamiliar with French in\n1793, Paine might not have discovered the erratum in Lanthenas\u2019\ntranslation, and, having no time for copying, he would naturally use as\nmuch as possible of the same manuscript in preparing his work for\nEnglish readers. But he had no opportunity of revision, and there\nremains an erratum which, if my conjecture be correct, casts a\nsignificant light on the paragraphs in which he alludes to the\npreparation of the work. He states that soon after his publication of\n\u201cCommon Sense\u201d (1776), he \u201csaw the exceeding probability that a\nrevolution in the system of government would be followed by a\nrevolution in the system of religion,\u201d and that \u201cman would return to\nthe pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief of one God and no more.\u201d He\ntells Samuel Adams that it had long been his intention to publish his\nthoughts upon religion, and he had made a similar remark to John Adams\nin 1776. Like the Quakers among whom he was reared Paine could then\nreadily use the phrase \u201cword of God\u201d for anything in the Bible which\napproved itself to his \u201cinner light,\u201d and as he had drawn from the\nfirst Book of Samuel a divine condemnation of monarchy, John Adams, a\nUnitarian, asked him if he believed in the inspiration of the Old\nTestament. Paine replied that he did not, and at a later period meant\nto publish his views on the subject. There is little doubt that he\nwrote from time to time on religious points, during the American war,\nwithout publishing his thoughts, just as he worked on the problem of\nsteam navigation, in which he had invented a practicable method (ten\nyears before John Fitch made his discovery) without publishing it. At\nany rate it appears to me certain that the part of \u201cThe Age of Reason\u201d\nconnected with Paine\u2019s favorite science, astronomy, was written before\n1781, when Uranus was discovered.\n\nPaine\u2019s theism, however invested with biblical and Christian\nphraseology, was a birthright. It appears clear from several allusions\nin \u201cThe Age of Reason\u201d to the Quakers that in his early life, or before\nthe middle of the eighteenth century, the people so called were\nsubstantially Deists. An interesting confirmation of Paine\u2019s statements\nconcerning them appears as I write in an account sent by Count Leo\nTolstoi to the London \u2018Times\u2019 of the Russian sect called Dukhobortsy\n(The Times, October 23, 1895). This sect sprang up in the last century,\nand the narrative says:\n\n\u201cThe first seeds of the teaching called afterwards \u2018Dukhoborcheskaya\u2019\nwere sown by a foreigner, a Quaker, who came to Russia. The fundamental\nidea of his Quaker teaching was that in the soul of man dwells God\nhimself, and that He himself guides man by His inner word. God lives in\nnature physically and in man\u2019s soul spiritually. To Christ, as to an\nhistorical personage, the Dukhobortsy do not ascribe great\nimportance... Christ was God\u2019s son, but only in the sense in which we\ncall, ourselves \u2018sons of God.\u2019 The purpose of Christ\u2019s sufferings was\nno other than to show us an example of suffering for truth. The Quakers\nwho, in 1818, visited the Dukhobortsy, could not agree with them upon\nthese religious subjects; and when they heard from them their opinion\nabout Jesus Christ (that he was a man), exclaimed \u2018Darkness!\u2019 From the\nOld and New Testaments,\u2019 they say, \u2018we take only what is useful,\u2019\nmostly the moral teaching.... The moral ideas of the Dukhobortsy are\nthe following:\u2014All men are, by nature, equal; external distinctions,\nwhatsoever they may be, are worth nothing. This idea of men\u2019s equality\nthe Dukhoborts have directed further, against the State authority....\nAmongst themselves they hold subordination, and much more, a\nmonarchical Government, to be contrary to their ideas.\u201d\n\nHere is an early Hicksite Quakerism carried to Russia long before the\nbirth of Elias Hicks, who recovered it from Paine, to whom the American\nQuakers refused burial among them. Although Paine arraigned the union\nof Church and State, his ideal Republic was religious; it was based on\na conception of equality based on the divine son-ship of every man.\nThis faith underlay equally his burden against claims to divine\npartiality by a \u201cChosen People,\u201d a Priesthood, a Monarch \u201cby the grace\nof God,\u201d or an Aristocracy. Paine\u2019s \u201cReason\u201d is only an expansion of\nthe Quaker\u2019s \u201cinner light\u201d; and the greater impression, as compared\nwith previous republican and deistic writings made by his \u201cRights of\nMan\u201d and \u201cAge of Reason\u201d (really volumes of one work), is partly\nexplained by the apostolic fervor which made him a spiritual, successor\nof George Fox.\n\nPaine\u2019s mind was by no means skeptical, it was eminently instructive.\nThat he should have waited until his fifty-seventh year before\npublishing his religious convictions was due to a desire to work out\nsome positive and practicable system to take the place of that which he\nbelieved was crumbling. The English engineer Hall, who assisted Paine\nin making the model of his iron bridge, wrote to his friends in\nEngland, in 1786: \u201cMy employer has Common Sense enough to disbelieve\nmost of the common systematic theories of Divinity, but does not seem\nto establish any for himself.\u201d But five years later Paine was able to\nlay the corner-stone of his temple: \u201cWith respect to religion itself,\nwithout regard to names, and as directing itself from the universal\nfamily of mankind to the \u2018Divine object of all adoration, it is man\nbringing to his Maker the fruits of his heart; and though those fruits\nmay differ from each other like the fruits of the earth, the grateful\ntribute of every one, is accepted.\u201d (\u201cRights of Man.\u201d See my edition of\nPaine\u2019s Writings, ii., p. 326.) Here we have a reappearance of George\nFox confuting the doctor in America who \u201cdenied the light and Spirit of\nGod to be in every one; and affirmed that it was not in the Indians.\nWhereupon I called an Indian to us, and asked him \u2018whether or not, when\nhe lied, or did wrong to anyone, there was not something in him that\nreproved him for it?\u2019 He said, \u2018There was such a thing in him that did\nso reprove him; and he was ashamed when he had done wrong, or spoken\nwrong.\u2019 So we shamed the doctor before the governor and the people.\u201d\n(Journal of George Fox, September 1672.)\n\nPaine, who coined the phrase \u201cReligion of Humanity\u201d (The Crisis, vii.,\n1778), did but logically defend it in \u201cThe Age of Reason,\u201d by denying a\nspecial revelation to any particular tribe, or divine authority in any\nparticular creed of church; and the centenary of this much-abused\npublication has been celebrated by a great conservative champion of\nChurch and State, Mr. Balfour, who, in his \u201cFoundations of Belief,\u201d\naffirms that \u201cinspiration\u201d cannot be denied to the great Oriental\nteachers, unless grapes may be gathered from thorns.\n\nThe centenary of the complete publication of \u201cThe Age of Reason,\u201d\n(October 25, 1795), was also celebrated at the Church Congress,\nNorwich, on October 10, 1895, when Professor Bonney, F.R.S., Canon of\nManchester, read a paper in which he said: \u201cI cannot deny that the\nincrease of scientific knowledge has deprived parts of the earlier\nbooks of the Bible of the historical value which was generally\nattributed to them by our forefathers. The story of Creation in the\nBook of Genesis, unless we play fast and loose either with words or\nwith science, cannot be brought into harmony with what we have learnt\nfrom geology. Its ethnological statements are imperfect, if not\nsometimes inaccurate. The stories of the Fall, of the Flood, and of the\nTower of Babel, are incredible in their present form. Some historical\nelement may underlie many of the traditions in the first eleven\nchapters in that book, but this we cannot hope to recover.\u201d Canon\nBonney proceeded to say of the New Testament also, that \u201cthe Gospels\nare not so far as we know, strictly contemporaneous records, so we must\nadmit the possibility of variations and even inaccuracies in details\nbeing introduced by oral tradition.\u201d The Canon thinks the interval too\nshort for these importations to be serious, but that any question of\nthis kind is left open proves the Age of Reason fully upon us. Reason\nalone can determine how many texts are as spurious as the three\nheavenly witnesses (i John v. 7), and like it \u201cserious\u201d enough to have\ncost good men their lives, and persecutors their charities. When men\ninterpolate, it is because they believe their interpolation seriously\nneeded. It will be seen by a note in Part II. of the work, that Paine\ncalls attention to an interpolation introduced into the first American\nedition without indication of its being an editorial footnote. This\nfootnote was: \u201cThe book of Luke was carried by a majority of one only.\nVide Moshelm\u2019s Ecc. History.\u201d Dr. Priestley, then in America, answered\nPaine\u2019s work, and in quoting less than a page from the \u201cAge of Reason\u201d\nhe made three alterations,\u2014one of which changed \u201cchurch mythologists\u201d\ninto \u201cChristian mythologists,\u201d\u2014and also raised the editorial footnote\ninto the text, omitting the reference to Mosheim. Having done this,\nPriestley writes: \u201cAs to the gospel of Luke being carried by a majority\nof one only, it is a legend, if not of Mr. Paine\u2019s own invention, of no\nbetter authority whatever.\u201d And so on with further castigation of the\nauthor for what he never wrote, and which he himself (Priestley) was\nthe unconscious means of introducing into the text within the year of\nPaine\u2019s publication.\n\nIf this could be done, unintentionally by a conscientious and exact\nman, and one not unfriendly to Paine, if such a writer as Priestley\ncould make four mistakes in citing half a page, it will appear not very\nwonderful when I state that in a modern popular edition of \u201cThe Age of\nReason,\u201d including both parts, I have noted about five hundred\ndeviations from the original. These were mainly the accumulated efforts\nof friendly editors to improve Paine\u2019s grammar or spelling; some were\nmisprints, or developed out of such; and some resulted from the sale in\nLondon of a copy of Part Second surreptitiously made from the\nmanuscript. These facts add significance to Paine\u2019s footnote (itself\naltered in some editions!), in which he says: \u201cIf this has happened\nwithin such a short space of time, notwithstanding the aid of printing,\nwhich prevents the alteration of copies individually; what may not have\nhappened in a much greater length of time, when there was no printing,\nand when any man who could write, could make a written copy, and call\nit an original, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.\u201d\n\nNothing appears to me more striking, as an illustration of the\nfar-reaching effects of traditional prejudice, than the errors into\nwhich some of our ablest contemporary scholars have fallen by reason of\ntheir not having studied Paine. Professor Huxley, for instance,\nspeaking of the freethinkers of the eighteenth century, admires the\nacuteness, common sense, wit, and the broad humanity of the best of\nthem, but says \u201cthere is rarely much to be said for their work as an\nexample of the adequate treatment of a grave and difficult\ninvestigation,\u201d and that they shared with their adversaries \u201cto the\nfull the fatal weakness of a priori philosophizing.\u201d [NOTE: Science and\nChristian Tradition, p. 18 (Lon. ed., 1894).] Professor Huxley does not\nname Paine, evidently because he knows nothing about him. Yet Paine\nrepresents the turning-point of the historical freethinking movement;\nhe renounced the \u2018a priori\u2019 method, refused to pronounce anything\nimpossible outside pure mathematics, rested everything on evidence, and\nreally founded the Huxleyan school. He plagiarized by anticipation many\nthings from the rationalistic leaders of our time, from Strauss and\nBaur (being the first to expatiate on \u201cChristian Mythology\u201d), from\nRenan (being the first to attempt recovery of the human Jesus), and\nnotably from Huxley, who has repeated Paine\u2019s arguments on the\nuntrustworthiness of the biblical manuscripts and canon, on the\ninconsistencies of the narratives of Christ\u2019s resurrection, and various\nother points. None can be more loyal to the memory of Huxley than the\npresent writer, and it is even because of my sense of his grand\nleadership that he is here mentioned as a typical instance of the\nextent to which the very elect of free-thought may be unconsciously\nvictimized by the phantasm with which they are contending. He says that\nButler overthrew freethinkers of the eighteenth century type, but Paine\nwas of the nineteenth century type; and it was precisely because of his\ncritical method that he excited more animosity than his deistical\npredecessors. He compelled the apologists to defend the biblical\nnarratives in detail, and thus implicitly acknowledge the tribunal of\nreason and knowledge to which they were summoned. The ultimate answer\nby police was a confession of judgment. A hundred years ago England was\nsuppressing Paine\u2019s works, and many an honest Englishman has gone to\nprison for printing and circulating his \u201cAge of Reason.\u201d The same views\nare now freely expressed; they are heard in the seats of learning, and\neven in the Church Congress; but the suppression of Paine, begun by\nbigotry and ignorance, is continued in the long indifference of the\nrepresentatives of our Age of Reason to their pioneer and founder. It\nis a grievous loss to them and to their cause. It is impossible to\nunderstand the religious history of England, and of America, without\nstudying the phases of their evolution represented in the writings of\nThomas Paine, in the controversies that grew out of them with such\npractical accompaniments as the foundation of the Theophilanthropist\nChurch in Paris and New York, and of the great rationalist wing of\nQuakerism in America.\n\nWhatever may be the case with scholars in our time, those of Paine\u2019s\ntime took the \u201cAge of Reason\u201d very seriously indeed. Beginning with the\nlearned Dr. Richard Watson, Bishop of Llandaff, a large number of\nlearned men replied to Paine\u2019s work, and it became a signal for the\ncommencement of those concessions, on the part of theology, which have\ncontinued to our time; and indeed the so-called \u201cBroad Church\u201d is to\nsome extent an outcome of \u201cThe Age of Reason.\u201d It would too much\nenlarge this Introduction to cite here the replies made to Paine\n(thirty-six are catalogued in the British Museum), but it may be\nremarked that they were notably free, as a rule, from the personalities\nthat raged in the pulpits. I must venture to quote one passage from his\nvery learned antagonist, the Rev. Gilbert Wakefield, B.A., \u201clate Fellow\nof Jesus College, Cambridge.\u201d Wakefield, who had resided in London\nduring all the Paine panic, and was well acquainted with the slanders\nuttered against the author of \u201cRights of Man,\u201d indirectly brands them\nin answering Paine\u2019s argument that the original and traditional\nunbelief of the Jews, among whom the alleged miracles were wrought, is\nan important evidence against them. The learned divine writes:\n\n\u201cBut the subject before us admits of further illustration from the\nexample of Mr. Paine himself. In this country, where his opposition to\nthe corruptions of government has raised him so many adversaries, and\nsuch a swarm of unprincipled hirelings have exerted themselves in\nblackening his character and in misrepresenting all the transactions\nand incidents of his life, will it not be a most difficult, nay an\nimpossible task, for posterity, after a lapse of 1700 years, if such a\nwreck of modern literature as that of the ancient, should intervene, to\nidentify the real circumstances, moral and civil, of the man? And will\na true historian, such as the Evangelists, be credited at that future\nperiod against such a predominant incredulity, without large and mighty\naccessions of collateral attestation? And how transcendently\nextraordinary, I had almost said miraculous, will it be estimated by\ncandid and reasonable minds, that a writer whose object was a\nmelioration of condition to the common people, and their deliverance\nfrom oppression, poverty, wretchedness, to the numberless blessings of\nupright and equal government, should be reviled, persecuted, and burned\nin effigy, with every circumstance of insult and execration, by these\nvery objects of his benevolent intentions, in every corner of the\nkingdom?\u201d After the execution of Louis XVI., for whose life Paine\npleaded so earnestly,\u2014while in England he was denounced as an\naccomplice in the deed,\u2014he devoted himself to the preparation of a\nConstitution, and also to gathering up his religious compositions and\nadding to them. This manuscript I suppose to have been prepared in what\nwas variously known as White\u2019s Hotel or Philadelphia House, in Paris,\nNo. 7 Passage des Petits Peres. This compilation of early and fresh\nmanuscripts (if my theory be correct) was labelled, \u201cThe Age of\nReason,\u201d and given for translation to Francois Lanthenas in March 1793.\nIt is entered, in Qudrard (La France Literaire) under the year 1793,\nbut with the title \u201cL\u2019Age de la Raison\u201d instead of that which it bore\nin 1794, \u201cLe Siecle de la Raison.\u201d The latter, printed \u201cAu Burcau de\nl\u2019imprimerie, rue du Theatre-Francais, No. 4,\u201d is said to be by \u201cThomas\nPaine, Citoyen et cultivateur de l\u2019Amerique septentrionale, secretaire\ndu Congres du departement des affaires etrangeres pendant la guerre\nd\u2019Amerique, et auteur des ouvrages intitules: LA SENS COMMUN et LES\nDROITS DE L\u2019HOMME.\u201d\n\nWhen the Revolution was advancing to increasing terrors, Paine,\nunwilling to participate in the decrees of a Convention whose sole\nlegal function was to frame a Constitution, retired to an old mansion\nand garden in the Faubourg St. Denis, No. 63. Mr. J.G. Alger, whose\nresearches in personal details connected with the Revolution are\noriginal and useful, recently showed me in the National Archives at\nParis, some papers connected with the trial of Georgeit, Paine\u2019s\nlandlord, by which it appears that the present No. 63 is not, as I had\nsupposed, the house in which Paine resided. Mr. Alger accompanied me to\nthe neighborhood, but we were not able to identify the house. The\narrest of Georgeit is mentioned by Paine in his essay on\n\u201cForgetfulness\u201d (Writings, iii., 319). When his trial came on one of\nthe charges was that he had kept in his house \u201cPaine and other\nEnglishmen,\u201d\u2014Paine being then in prison,\u2014but he (Georgeit) was\nacquitted of the paltry accusations brought against him by his Section,\nthe \u201cFaubourg du Nord.\u201d This Section took in the whole east side of the\nFaubourg St. Denis, whereas the present No. 63 is on the west side.\nAfter Georgeit (or Georger) had been arrested, Paine was left alone in\nthe large mansion (said by Rickman to have been once the hotel of\nMadame de Pompadour), and it would appear, by his account, that it was\nafter the execution (October 31, 1793) Of his friends the Girondins,\nand political comrades, that he felt his end at hand, and set about his\nlast literary bequest to the world,\u2014\u201cThe Age of Reason,\u201d\u2014in the state\nin which it has since appeared, as he is careful to say. There was\nevery probability, during the months in which he wrote (November and\nDecember 1793) that he would be executed. His religious testament was\nprepared with the blade of the guillotine suspended over him,\u2014a fact\nwhich did not deter pious mythologists from portraying his death-bed\nremorse for having written the book.\n\nIn editing Part I. of \u201cThe Age of Reason,\u201d I follow closely the first\nedition, which was printed by Barrois in Paris from the manuscript, no\ndoubt under the superintendence of Joel Barlow, to whom Paine, on his\nway to the Luxembourg, had confided it. Barlow was an American\nex-clergyman, a speculator on whose career French archives cast an\nunfavorable light, and one cannot be certain that no liberties were\ntaken with Paine\u2019s proofs.\n\nI may repeat here what I have stated in the outset of my editorial work\non Paine that my rule is to correct obvious misprints, and also any\npunctuation which seems to render the sense less clear. And to that I\nwill now add that in following Paine\u2019s quotations from the Bible I have\nadopted the Plan now generally used in place of his occasionally too\nextended writing out of book, chapter, and verse.\n\nPaine was imprisoned in the Luxembourg on December 28, 1793, and\nreleased on November 4, 1794. His liberation was secured by his old\nfriend, James Monroe (afterwards President), who had succeeded his\n(Paine\u2019s) relentless enemy, Gouverneur Morris, as American Minister in\nParis. He was found by Monroe more dead than alive from\nsemi-starvation, cold, and an abscess contracted in prison, and taken\nto the Minister\u2019s own residence. It was not supposed that he could\nsurvive, and he owed his life to the tender care of Mr. and Mrs.\nMonroe. It was while thus a prisoner in his room, with death still\nhovering over him, that Paine wrote Part Second of \u201cThe Age of Reason.\u201d\n\nThe work was published in London by H.D. Symonds on October 25, 1795,\nand claimed to be \u201cfrom the Author\u2019s manuscript.\u201d It is marked as\n\u201cEntered at Stationers Hall,\u201d and prefaced by an apologetic note of\n\u201cThe Bookseller to the Public,\u201d whose commonplaces about avoiding both\nprejudice and partiality, and considering \u201cboth sides,\u201d need not be\nquoted. While his volume was going through the press in Paris, Paine\nheard of the publication in London, which drew from him the following\nhurried note to a London publisher, no doubt Daniel Isaacs Eaton:\n\n\u201cSIR,\u2014I have seen advertised in the London papers the second Edition\n[part] of the Age of Reason, printed, the advertisement says, from the\nAuthor\u2019s Manuscript, and entered at Stationers Hall. I have never sent\nany manuscript to any person. It is therefore a forgery to say it is\nprinted from the author\u2019s manuscript; and I suppose is done to give the\nPublisher a pretence of Copy Right, which he has no title to.\n\n\u201cI send you a printed copy, which is the only one I have sent to\nLondon. I wish you to make a cheap edition of it. I know not by what\nmeans any copy has got over to London. If any person has made a\nmanuscript copy I have no doubt but it is full of errors. I wish you\nwould talk to Mr. \u2014\u2014- upon this subject as I wish to know by what means\nthis trick has been played, and from whom the publisher has got\npossession of any copy.\n\n\u201cT. PAINE.\n\n\u201cPARIS, December 4, 1795\u201d\n\nEaton\u2019s cheap edition appeared January 1, 1796, with the above letter\non the reverse of the title. The blank in the note was probably\n\u201cSymonds\u201d in the original, and possibly that publisher was imposed\nupon. Eaton, already in trouble for printing one of Paine\u2019s political\npamphlets, fled to America, and an edition of the \u201cAge of Reason\u201d was\nissued under a new title; no publisher appears; it is said to be\n\u201cprinted for, and sold by all the Booksellers in Great Britain and\nIreland.\u201d It is also said to be \u201cBy Thomas Paine, author of several\nremarkable performances.\u201d I have never found any copy of this anonymous\nedition except the one in my possession. It is evidently the edition\nwhich was suppressed by the prosecution of Williams for selling a copy\nof it.\n\nA comparison with Paine\u2019s revised edition reveals a good many clerical\nand verbal errors in Symonds, though few that affect the sense. The\nworst are in the preface, where, instead of \u201c1793,\u201d the misleading date\n\u201c1790\u201d is given as the year at whose close Paine completed Part\nFirst,\u2014an error that spread far and wide and was fastened on by his\ncalumnious American \u201cbiographer,\u201d Cheetham, to prove his inconsistency.\nThe editors have been fairly demoralized by, and have altered in\ndifferent ways, the following sentence of the preface in Symonds: \u201cThe\nintolerant spirit of religious persecution had transferred itself into\npolitics; the tribunals, styled Revolutionary, supplied the place of\nthe Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the State outdid the Fire and\nFaggot of the Church.\u201d The rogue who copied this little knew the care\nwith which Paine weighed words, and that he would never call\npersecution \u201creligious,\u201d nor connect the guillotine with the \u201cState,\u201d\nnor concede that with all its horrors it had outdone the history of\nfire and faggot. What Paine wrote was: \u201cThe intolerant spirit of church\npersecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, styled\nRevolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition and the Guillotine,\nof the Stake.\u201d\n\nAn original letter of Paine, in the possession of Joseph Cowen,\nex-M.P., which that gentleman permits me to bring to light, besides\nbeing one of general interest makes clear the circumstances of the\noriginal publication. Although the name of the correspondent does not\nappear on the letter, it was certainly written to Col. John Fellows of\nNew York, who copyrighted Part I. of the \u201cAge of Reason.\u201d He published\nthe pamphlets of Joel Barlow, to whom Paine confided his manuscript on\nhis way to prison. Fellows was afterwards Paine\u2019s intimate friend in\nNew York, and it was chiefly due to him that some portions of the\nauthor\u2019s writings, left in manuscript to Madame Bonneville while she\nwas a freethinker were rescued from her devout destructiveness after\nher return to Catholicism. The letter which Mr. Cowen sends me, is\ndated at Paris, January 20, 1797.\n\n\u201cSIR,\u2014Your friend Mr. Caritat being on the point of his departure for\nAmerica, I make it the opportunity of writing to you. I received two\nletters from you with some pamphlets a considerable time past, in which\nyou inform me of your entering a copyright of the first part of the Age\nof Reason: when I return to America we will settle for that matter.\n\n\u201cAs Doctor Franklin has been my intimate friend for thirty years past\nyou will naturally see the reason of my continuing the connection with\nhis grandson. I printed here (Paris) about fifteen thousand of the\nsecond part of the Age of Reason, which I sent to Mr. F[ranklin] Bache.\nI gave him notice of it in September 1795 and the copy-right by my own\ndirection was entered by him. The books did not arrive till April\nfollowing, but he had advertised it long before.\n\n\u201cI sent to him in August last a manuscript letter of about 70 pages,\nfrom me to Mr. Washington to be printed in a pamphlet. Mr. Barnes of\nPhiladelphia carried the letter from me over to London to be forwarded\nto America. It went by the ship Hope, Cap: Harley, who since his return\nfrom America told me that he put it into the post office at New York\nfor Bache. I have yet no certain account of its publication. I mention\nthis that the letter may be enquired after, in case it has not been\npublished or has not arrived to Mr. Bache. Barnes wrote to me, from\nLondon 29 August informing me that he was offered three hundred pounds\nsterling for the manuscript. The offer was refused because it was my\nintention it should not appear till it appeared in America, as that,\nand not England was the place for its operation.\n\n\u201cYou ask me by your letter to Mr. Caritat for a list of my several\nworks, in order to publish a collection of them. This is an undertaking\nI have always reserved for myself. It not only belongs to me of right,\nbut nobody but myself can do it; and as every author is accountable (at\nleast in reputation) for his works, he only is the person to do it. If\nhe neglects it in his life-time the case is altered. It is my intention\nto return to America in the course of the present year. I shall then\n[do] it by subscription, with historical notes. As this work will\nemploy many persons in different parts of the Union, I will confer with\nyou upon the subject, and such part of it as will suit you to\nundertake, will be at your choice. I have sustained so much loss, by\ndisinterestedness and inattention to money matters, and by accidents,\nthat I am obliged to look closer to my affairs than I have done. The\nprinter (an Englishman) whom I employed here to print the second part\nof \u2018the Age of Reason\u2019 made a manuscript copy of the work while he was\nprinting it, which he sent to London and sold. It was by this means\nthat an edition of it came out in London.\n\n\u201cWe are waiting here for news from America of the state of the federal\nelections. You will have heard long before this reaches you that the\nFrench government has refused to receive Mr. Pinckney as minister.\nWhile Mr. Monroe was minister he had the opportunity of softening\nmatters with this government, for he was in good credit with them tho\u2019\nthey were in high indignation at the infidelity of the Washington\nAdministration. It is time that Mr. Washington retire, for he has\nplayed off so much prudent hypocrisy between France and England that\nneither government believes anything he says.\n\n\u201cYour friend, etc.,\n\n\u201cTHOMAS PAINE.\u201d\n\nIt would appear that Symonds\u2019 stolen edition must have got ahead of\nthat sent by Paine to Franklin Bache, for some of its errors continue\nin all modern American editions to the present day, as well as in those\nof England. For in England it was only the shilling edition\u2014that\nrevised by Paine\u2014which was suppressed. Symonds, who ministered to the\nhalf-crown folk, and who was also publisher of replies to Paine, was\nleft undisturbed about his pirated edition, and the new Society for the\nsuppression of Vice and Immorality fastened on one Thomas Williams, who\nsold pious tracts but was also convicted (June 24, 1797) of having sold\none copy of the \u201cAge of Reason.\u201d Erskine, who had defended Paine at his\ntrial for the \u201cRights of Man,\u201d conducted the prosecution of Williams.\nHe gained the victory from a packed jury, but was not much elated by\nit, especially after a certain adventure on his way to Lincoln\u2019s Inn.\nHe felt his coat clutched and beheld at his feet a woman bathed in\ntears. She led him into the small book-shop of Thomas Williams, not yet\ncalled up for judgment, and there he beheld his victim stitching tracts\nin a wretched little room, where there were three children, two\nsuffering with Smallpox. He saw that it would be ruin and even a sort\nof murder to take away to prison the husband, who was not a\nfreethinker, and lamented his publication of the book, and a meeting of\nthe Society which had retained him was summoned. There was a full\nmeeting, the Bishop of London (Porteus) in the chair. Erskine reminded\nthem that Williams was yet to be brought up for sentence, described the\nscene he had witnessed, and Williams\u2019 penitence, and, as the book was\nnow suppressed, asked permission to move for a nominal sentence. Mercy,\nhe urged, was a part of the Christianity they were defending. Not one\nof the Society took his side,\u2014not even \u201cphilanthropic\u201d Wilberforce\u2014and\nErskine threw up his brief. This action of Erskine led the Judge to\ngive Williams only a year in prison instead of the three he said had\nbeen intended.\n\nWhile Williams was in prison the orthodox colporteurs were circulating\nErskine\u2019s speech on Christianity, but also an anonymous sermon \u201cOn the\nExistence and Attributes of the Deity,\u201d all of which was from Paine\u2019s\n\u201cAge of Reason,\u201d except a brief \u201cAddress to the Deity\u201d appended. This\npicturesque anomaly was repeated in the circulation of Paine\u2019s\n\u201cDiscourse to the Theophilanthropists\u201d (their and the author\u2019s names\nremoved) under the title of \u201cAtheism Refuted.\u201d Both of these pamphlets\nare now before me, and beside them a London tract of one page just sent\nfor my spiritual benefit. This is headed \u201cA Word of Caution.\u201d It begins\nby mentioning the \u201cpernicious doctrines of Paine,\u201d the first being\n\u201cthat there is No GOD\u201d (sic,) then proceeds to adduce evidences of\ndivine existence taken from Paine\u2019s works. It should be added that this\none dingy page is the only \u201csurvival\u201d of the ancient Paine effigy in\nthe tract form which I have been able to find in recent years, and to\nthis no Society or Publisher\u2019s name is attached.\n\nThe imprisonment of Williams was the beginning of a thirty years\u2019 war\nfor religious liberty in England, in the course of which occurred many\nnotable events, such as Eaton receiving homage in his pillory at\nChoring Cross, and the whole Carlile family imprisoned,\u2014its head\nimprisoned more than nine years for publishing the \u201cAge of Reason.\u201d\nThis last victory of persecution was suicidal. Gentlemen of wealth, not\nadherents of Paine, helped in setting Carlile up in business in Fleet\nStreet, where free-thinking publications have since been sold without\ninterruption. But though Liberty triumphed in one sense, the \u201cAge of\nReason.\u201d remained to some extent suppressed among those whose attention\nit especially merited. Its original prosecution by a Society for the\nSuppression of Vice (a device to, relieve the Crown) amounted to a\nlibel upon a morally clean book, restricting its perusal in families;\nand the fact that the shilling book sold by and among humble people was\nalone prosecuted, diffused among the educated an equally false notion\nthat the \u201cAge of Reason\u201d was vulgar and illiterate. The theologians, as\nwe have seen, estimated more justly the ability of their antagonist,\nthe collaborator of Franklin, Rittenhouse, and Clymer, on whom the\nUniversity of Pennsylvania had conferred the degree of Master of\nArts,\u2014but the gentry confused Paine with the class described by Burke\nas \u201cthe swinish multitude.\u201d Skepticism, or its free utterance, was\ntemporarily driven out of polite circles by its complication with the\nout-lawed vindicator of the \u201cRights of Man.\u201d But that long combat has\nnow passed away. Time has reduced the \u201cAge of Reason\u201d from a flag of\npopular radicalism to a comparatively conservative treatise, so far as\nits negations are concerned. An old friend tells me that in his youth\nhe heard a sermon in which the preacher declared that \u201cTom Paine was so\nwicked that he could not be buried; his bones were thrown into a box\nwhich was bandied about the world till it came to a\nbutton-manufacturer; and now Paine is travelling round the world in the\nform of buttons!\u201d This variant of the Wandering Jew myth may now be\nregarded as unconscious homage to the author whose metaphorical bones\nmay be recognized in buttons now fashionable, and some even found\nuseful in holding clerical vestments together.\n\nBut the careful reader will find in Paine\u2019s \u201cAge of Reason\u201d something\nbeyond negations, and in conclusion I will especially call attention to\nthe new departure in Theism indicated in a passage corresponding to a\nfamous aphorism of Kant, indicated by a note in Part II. The discovery\nalready mentioned, that Part I. was written at least fourteen years\nbefore Part II., led me to compare the two; and it is plain that while\nthe earlier work is an amplification of Newtonian Deism, based on the\nphenomena of planetary motion, the work of 1795 bases belief in God on\n\u201cthe universal display of himself in the works of the creation and by\nthat repugnance we feel in ourselves to bad actions, and disposition to\ndo good ones.\u201d This exaltation of the moral nature of man to be the\nfoundation of theistic religion, though now familiar, was a hundred\nyears ago a new affirmation; it has led on a conception of deity\nsubversive of last-century deism, it has steadily humanized religion,\nand its ultimate philosophical and ethical results have not yet been\nreached.\n\n\n\n\nTHE AGE OF REASON \u2014 PART I\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\nTHE AUTHOR\u2019S PROFESSION OF FAITH.\n\n\nIt has been my intention, for several years past, to publish my\nthoughts upon religion; I am well aware of the difficulties that attend\nthe subject, and from that consideration, had reserved it to a more\nadvanced period of life. I intended it to be the last offering I should\nmake to my fellow-citizens of all nations, and that at a time when the\npurity of the motive that induced me to it could not admit of a\nquestion, even by those who might disapprove the work.\n\nThe circumstance that has now taken place in France, of the total\nabolition of the whole national order of priesthood, and of everything\nappertaining to compulsive systems of religion, and compulsive articles\nof faith, has not only precipitated my intention, but rendered a work\nof this kind exceedingly necessary, lest, in the general wreck of\nsuperstition, of false systems of government, and false theology, we\nlose sight of morality, of humanity, and of the theology that is true.\n\nAs several of my colleagues, and others of my fellow-citizens of\nFrance, have given me the example of making their voluntary and\nindividual profession of faith, I also will make mine; and I do this\nwith all that sincerity and frankness with which the mind of man\ncommunicates with itself.\n\nI believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this\nlife.\n\nI believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties\nconsist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our\nfellow-creatures happy.\n\nBut, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in\naddition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the\nthings I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.\n\nI do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the\nRoman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the\nProtestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my\nown church.\n\nAll national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or\nTurkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify\nand enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.\n\nI do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe\notherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine.\nBut it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally\nfaithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in\ndisbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not\nbelieve.\n\nIt is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express\nit, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far\ncorrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his\nprofessional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared\nhimself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade\nof a priest for the sake of gain, and, in order to qualify himself for\nthat trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more\ndestructive to morality than this?\n\nSoon after I had published the pamphlet COMMON SENSE, in America, I saw\nthe exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government\nwould be followed by a revolution in the system of religion. The\nadulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place,\nwhether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited,\nby pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds, and\nupon first principles of religion, that until the system of government\nshould be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and\nopenly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a\nrevolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and\npriest-craft would be detected; and man would return to the pure,\nunmixed, and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\nOF MISSIONS AND REVELATIONS.\n\n\nEvery national church or religion has established itself by pretending\nsome special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The\nJews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their\napostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God\nwas not open to every man alike.\n\nEach of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation,\nor the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by\nGod to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God\ncame by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God\n(the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches\naccuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them\nall.\n\nAs it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I\nproceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word\n\u2018revelation.\u2019 Revelation when applied to religion, means something\ncommunicated immediately from God to man.\n\nNo one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a\ncommunication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case,\nthat something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed\nto any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he\ntells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth,\nand so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is\nrevelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and,\nconsequently, they are not obliged to believe it.\n\nIt is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation\nthat comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing.\nRevelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After\nthis, it is only an account of something which that person says was a\nrevelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to\nbelieve it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same\nmanner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his\nword for it that it was made to him.\n\nWhen Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables\nof the commandments from the hand of God, they were not obliged to\nbelieve him, because they had no other authority for it than his\ntelling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some\nhistorian telling me so, the commandments carrying no internal evidence\nof divinity with them. They contain some good moral precepts such as\nany man qualified to be a lawgiver or a legislator could produce\nhimself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention. [NOTE:\nIt is, however, necessary to except the declamation which says that God\n\u2018visits the sins of the fathers upon the children\u2019. This is contrary to\nevery principle of moral justice.\u2014Author.]\n\nWhen I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven, and brought to\nMahomet by an angel, the account comes to near the same kind of hearsay\nevidence and second hand authority as the former. I did not see the\nangel myself, and therefore I have a right not to believe it.\n\nWhen also I am told that a woman, called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave\nout, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and\nthat her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I\nhave a right to believe them or not: such a circumstance required a\nmuch stronger evidence than their bare word for it: but we have not\neven this; for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter\nthemselves. It is only reported by others that they said so. It is\nhearsay upon hearsay, and I do not chose to rest my belief upon such\nevidence.\n\nIt is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given\nto the story of Jesus Christ being the Son of God. He was born when the\nheathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and\nthat mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story.\nAlmost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology\nwere reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new\nthing at that time to believe a man to have been celestially begotten;\nthe intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar\nopinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with\nhundreds; the story therefore had nothing in it either new, wonderful,\nor obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed\namong the people called Gentiles, or mythologists, and it was those\npeople only that believed it. The Jews, who had kept strictly to the\nbelief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen\nmythology, never credited the story.\n\nIt is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian\nChurch, sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct\nincorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed\nfounder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then\nfollowed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which\nwas about twenty or thirty thousand. The statue of Mary succeeded the\nstatue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changed into the\ncanonization of saints. The Mythologists had gods for everything; the\nChristian Mythologists had saints for everything. The church became as\ncrowded with the one, as the pantheon had been with the other; and Rome\nwas the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the\nidolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of\npower and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to\nabolish the amphibious fraud.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\nCONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS HISTORY.\n\n\nNothing that is here said can apply, even with the most distant\ndisrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous\nand an amiable man. The morality that he preached and practiced was of\nthe most benevolent kind; and though similar systems of morality had\nbeen preached by Confucius, and by some of the Greek philosophers, many\nyears before, by the Quakers since, and by many good men in all ages,\nit has not been exceeded by any.\n\nJesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage, or\nanything else. Not a line of what is called the New Testament is of his\nwriting. The history of him is altogether the work of other people; and\nas to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was the\nnecessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His historians, having\nbrought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to\ntake him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story\nmust have fallen to the ground.\n\nThe wretched contrivance with which this latter part is told, exceeds\neverything that went before it. The first part, that of the miraculous\nconception, was not a thing that admitted of publicity; and therefore\nthe tellers of this part of the story had this advantage, that though\nthey might not be credited, they could not be detected. They could not\nbe expected to prove it, because it was not one of those things that\nadmitted of proof, and it was impossible that the person of whom it was\ntold could prove it himself.\n\nBut the resurrection of a dead person from the grave, and his ascension\nthrough the air, is a thing very different, as to the evidence it\nadmits of, to the invisible conception of a child in the womb. The\nresurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken place,\nadmitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the ascension\nof a balloon, or the sun at noon day, to all Jerusalem at least. A\nthing which everybody is required to believe, requires that the proof\nand evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal; and as the\npublic visibility of this last related act was the only evidence that\ncould give sanction to the former part, the whole of it falls to the\nground, because that evidence never was given. Instead of this, a small\nnumber of persons, not more than eight or nine, are introduced as\nproxies for the whole world, to say they saw it, and all the rest of\nthe world are called upon to believe it. But it appears that Thomas did\nnot believe the resurrection; and, as they say, would not believe\nwithout having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will\nI; and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other\nperson, as for Thomas.\n\nIt is in vain to attempt to palliate or disguise this matter. The\nstory, so far as relates to the supernatural part, has every mark of\nfraud and imposition stamped upon the face of it. Who were the authors\nof it is as impossible for us now to know, as it is for us to be\nassured that the books in which the account is related were written by\nthe persons whose names they bear. The best surviving evidence we now\nhave respecting this affair is the Jews. They are regularly descended\nfrom the people who lived in the time this resurrection and ascension\nis said to have happened, and they say \u2018it is not true.\u2019 It has long\nappeared to me a strange inconsistency to cite the Jews as a proof of\nthe truth of the story. It is just the same as if a man were to say, I\nwill prove the truth of what I have told you, by producing the people\nwho say it is false.\n\nThat such a person as Jesus Christ existed, and that he was crucified,\nwhich was the mode of execution at that day, are historical relations\nstrictly within the limits of probability. He preached most excellent\nmorality, and the equality of man; but he preached also against the\ncorruptions and avarice of the Jewish priests, and this brought upon\nhim the hatred and vengeance of the whole order of priest-hood. The\naccusation which those priests brought against him was that of sedition\nand conspiracy against the Roman government, to which the Jews were\nthen subject and tributary; and it is not improbable that the Roman\ngovernment might have some secret apprehension of the effects of his\ndoctrine as well as the Jewish priests; neither is it improbable that\nJesus Christ had in contemplation the delivery of the Jewish nation\nfrom the bondage of the Romans. Between the two, however, this virtuous\nreformer and revolutionist lost his life. [NOTE: The French work has\nhere: \u201cHowever this may be, for one or the other of these suppositions\nthis virtuous reformer, this revolutionist, too little imitated, too\nmuch forgotten, too much misunderstood, lost his life.\u201d\u2014Editor.\n(Conway)]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\nOF THE BASES OF CHRISTIANITY.\n\n\nIt is upon this plain narrative of facts, together with another case I\nam going to mention, that the Christian mythologists, calling\nthemselves the Christian Church, have erected their fable, which for\nabsurdity and extravagance is not exceeded by anything that is to be\nfound in the mythology of the ancients.\n\nThe ancient mythologists tell us that the race of Giants made war\nagainst Jupiter, and that one of them threw a hundred rocks against him\nat one throw; that Jupiter defeated him with thunder, and confined him\nafterwards under Mount Etna; and that every time the Giant turns\nhimself, Mount Etna belches fire. It is here easy to see that the\ncircumstance of the mountain, that of its being a volcano, suggested\nthe idea of the fable; and that the fable is made to fit and wind\nitself up with that circumstance.\n\nThe Christian mythologists tell that their Satan made war against the\nAlmighty, who defeated him, and confined him afterwards, not under a\nmountain, but in a pit. It is here easy to see that the first fable\nsuggested the idea of the second; for the fable of Jupiter and the\nGiants was told many hundred years before that of Satan.\n\nThus far the ancient and the Christian mythologists differ very little\nfrom each other. But the latter have contrived to carry the matter much\nfarther. They have contrived to connect the fabulous part of the story\nof Jesus Christ with the fable originating from Mount Etna; and, in\norder to make all the parts of the story tie together, they have taken\nto their aid the traditions of the Jews; for the Christian mythology is\nmade up partly from the ancient mythology, and partly from the Jewish\ntraditions.\n\nThe Christian mythologists, after having confined Satan in a pit, were\nobliged to let him out again to bring on the sequel of the fable. He is\nthen introduced into the garden of Eden in the shape of a snake, or a\nserpent, and in that shape he enters into familiar conversation with\nEve, who is no ways surprised to hear a snake talk; and the issue of\nthis tete-a-tate is, that he persuades her to eat an apple, and the\neating of that apple damns all mankind.\n\nAfter giving Satan this triumph over the whole creation, one would have\nsupposed that the church mythologists would have been kind enough to\nsend him back again to the pit, or, if they had not done this, that\nthey would have put a mountain upon him, (for they say that their faith\ncan remove a mountain) or have put him under a mountain, as the former\nmythologists had done, to prevent his getting again among the women,\nand doing more mischief. But instead of this, they leave him at large,\nwithout even obliging him to give his parole. The secret of which is,\nthat they could not do without him; and after being at the trouble of\nmaking him, they bribed him to stay. They promised him ALL the Jews,\nALL the Turks by anticipation, nine-tenths of the world beside, and\nMahomet into the bargain. After this, who can doubt the bountifulness\nof the Christian Mythology?\n\nHaving thus made an insurrection and a battle in heaven, in which none\nof the combatants could be either killed or wounded\u2014put Satan into the\npit\u2014let him out again\u2014given him a triumph over the whole\ncreation\u2014damned all mankind by the eating of an apple, there Christian\nmythologists bring the two ends of their fable together. They represent\nthis virtuous and amiable man, Jesus Christ, to be at once both God and\nman, and also the Son of God, celestially begotten, on purpose to be\nsacrificed, because they say that Eve in her longing [NOTE: The French\nwork has: \u201cyielding to an unrestrained appetite.\u201d\u2014Editor.] had eaten an\napple.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\nEXAMINATION IN DETAIL OF THE PRECEDING BASES.\n\n\nPutting aside everything that might excite laughter by its absurdity,\nor detestation by its profaneness, and confining ourselves merely to an\nexamination of the parts, it is impossible to conceive a story more\nderogatory to the Almighty, more inconsistent with his wisdom, more\ncontradictory to his power, than this story is.\n\nIn order to make for it a foundation to rise upon, the inventors were\nunder the necessity of giving to the being whom they call Satan a power\nequally as great, if not greater, than they attribute to the Almighty.\nThey have not only given him the power of liberating himself from the\npit, after what they call his fall, but they have made that power\nincrease afterwards to infinity. Before this fall they represent him\nonly as an angel of limited existence, as they represent the rest.\nAfter his fall, he becomes, by their account, omnipresent. He exists\neverywhere, and at the same time. He occupies the whole immensity of\nspace.\n\nNot content with this deification of Satan, they represent him as\ndefeating by stratagem, in the shape of an animal of the creation, all\nthe power and wisdom of the Almighty. They represent him as having\ncompelled the Almighty to the direct necessity either of surrendering\nthe whole of the creation to the government and sovereignty of this\nSatan, or of capitulating for its redemption by coming down upon earth,\nand exhibiting himself upon a cross in the shape of a man.\n\nHad the inventors of this story told it the contrary way, that is, had\nthey represented the Almighty as compelling Satan to exhibit himself on\na cross in the shape of a snake, as a punishment for his new\ntransgression, the story would have been less absurd, less\ncontradictory. But, instead of this they make the transgressor triumph,\nand the Almighty fall.\n\nThat many good men have believed this strange fable, and lived very\ngood lives under that belief (for credulity is not a crime) is what I\nhave no doubt of. In the first place, they were educated to believe it,\nand they would have believed anything else in the same manner. There\nare also many who have been so enthusiastically enraptured by what they\nconceived to be the infinite love of God to man, in making a sacrifice\nof himself, that the vehemence of the idea has forbidden and deterred\nthem from examining into the absurdity and profaneness of the story.\nThe more unnatural anything is, the more is it capable of becoming the\nobject of dismal admiration. [NOTE: The French work has \u201cblind and\u201d\npreceding dismal.\u2014Editor.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\nOF THE TRUE THEOLOGY.\n\n\nBut if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not\npresent themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair\ncreation prepared to receive us the instant we are born\u2014a world\nfurnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up\nthe sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance?\nWhether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes\non. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future,\nnothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects\nthan tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so\nintolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the\nCreator?\n\nI know that this bold investigation will alarm many, but it would be\npaying too great a compliment to their credulity to forbear it on that\naccount. The times and the subject demand it to be done. The suspicion\nthat the theory of what is called the Christian church is fabulous, is\nbecoming very extensive in all countries; and it will be a consolation\nto men staggering under that suspicion, and doubting what to believe\nand what to disbelieve, to see the subject freely investigated. I\ntherefore pass on to an examination of the books called the Old and the\nNew Testament.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\nEXAMINATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.\n\n\nThese books, beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelations,\n(which, by the bye, is a book of riddles that requires a revelation to\nexplain it) are, we are told, the word of God. It is, therefore, proper\nfor us to know who told us so, that we may know what credit to give to\nthe report. The answer to this question is, that nobody can tell,\nexcept that we tell one another so. The case, however, historically\nappears to be as follows:\n\nWhen the church mythologists established their system, they collected\nall the writings they could find, and managed them as they pleased. It\nis a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the\nwritings as now appear under the name of the Old and the New Testament,\nare in the same state in which those collectors say they found them; or\nwhether they added, altered, abridged, or dressed them up.\n\nBe this as it may, they decided by vote which of the books out of the\ncollection they had made, should be the WORD OF GOD, and which should\nnot. They rejected several; they voted others to be doubtful, such as\nthe books called the Apocrypha; and those books which had a majority of\nvotes, were voted to be the word of God. Had they voted otherwise, all\nthe people since calling themselves Christians had believed otherwise;\nfor the belief of the one comes from the vote of the other. Who the\npeople were that did all this, we know nothing of. They call themselves\nby the general name of the Church; and this is all we know of the\nmatter.\n\nAs we have no other external evidence or authority for believing these\nbooks to be the word of God, than what I have mentioned, which is no\nevidence or authority at all, I come, in the next place, to examine the\ninternal evidence contained in the books themselves.\n\nIn the former part of this essay, I have spoken of revelation. I now\nproceed further with that subject, for the purpose of applying it to\nthe books in question.\n\nRevelation is a communication of something, which the person, to whom\nthat thing is revealed, did not know before. For if I have done a\nthing, or seen it done, it needs no revelation to tell me I have done\nit, or seen it, nor to enable me to tell it, or to write it.\n\nRevelation, therefore, cannot be applied to anything done upon earth of\nwhich man is himself the actor or the witness; and consequently all the\nhistorical and anecdotal part of the Bible, which is almost the whole\nof it, is not within the meaning and compass of the word revelation,\nand, therefore, is not the word of God.\n\nWhen Samson ran off with the gate-posts of Gaza, if he ever did so,\n(and whether he did or not is nothing to us,) or when he visited his\nDelilah, or caught his foxes, or did anything else, what has revelation\nto do with these things? If they were facts, he could tell them\nhimself; or his secretary, if he kept one, could write them, if they\nwere worth either telling or writing; and if they were fictions,\nrevelation could not make them true; and whether true or not, we are\nneither the better nor the wiser for knowing them. When we contemplate\nthe immensity of that Being, who directs and governs the\nincomprehensible WHOLE, of which the utmost ken of human sight can\ndiscover but a part, we ought to feel shame at calling such paltry\nstories the word of God.\n\nAs to the account of the creation, with which the book of Genesis\nopens, it has all the appearance of being a tradition which the\nIsraelites had among them before they came into Egypt; and after their\ndeparture from that country, they put it at the head of their history,\nwithout telling, as it is most probable that they did not know, how\nthey came by it. The manner in which the account opens, shows it to be\ntraditionary. It begins abruptly. It is nobody that speaks. It is\nnobody that hears. It is addressed to nobody. It has neither first,\nsecond, nor third person. It has every criterion of being a tradition.\nIt has no voucher. Moses does not take it upon himself by introducing\nit with the formality that he uses on other occasions, such as that of\nsaying, \u201cThe Lords spake unto Moses, saying.\u201d\n\nWhy it has been called the Mosaic account of the creation, I am at a\nloss to conceive. Moses, I believe, was too good a judge of such\nsubjects to put his name to that account. He had been educated among\nthe Egyptians, who were a people as well skilled in science, and\nparticularly in astronomy, as any people of their day; and the silence\nand caution that Moses observes, in not authenticating the account, is\na good negative evidence that he neither told it nor believed it.\u2014The\ncase is, that every nation of people has been world-makers, and the\nIsraelites had as much right to set up the trade of world-making as any\nof the rest; and as Moses was not an Israelite, he might not chose to\ncontradict the tradition. The account, however, is harmless; and this\nis more than can be said for many other parts of the Bible.\n\nWhenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the\ncruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with\nwhich more than half the Bible [NOTE: It must be borne in mind that by\nthe \u201cBible\u201d Paine always means the Old Testament alone.\u2014Editor.] is\nfilled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a\ndemon, than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has\nserved to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I\nsincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.\n\nWe scarcely meet with anything, a few phrases excepted, but what\ndeserves either our abhorrence or our contempt, till we come to the\nmiscellaneous parts of the Bible. In the anonymous publications, the\nPsalms, and the Book of Job, more particularly in the latter, we find a\ngreat deal of elevated sentiment reverentially expressed of the power\nand benignity of the Almighty; but they stand on no higher rank than\nmany other compositions on similar subjects, as well before that time\nas since.\n\nThe Proverbs which are said to be Solomon\u2019s, though most probably a\ncollection, (because they discover a knowledge of life, which his\nsituation excluded him from knowing) are an instructive table of\nethics. They are inferior in keenness to the proverbs of the Spaniards,\nand not more wise and oeconomical than those of the American Franklin.\n\nAll the remaining parts of the Bible, generally known by the name of\nthe Prophets, are the works of the Jewish poets and itinerant\npreachers, who mixed poetry, anecdote, and devotion together\u2014and those\nworks still retain the air and style of poetry, though in translation.\n[NOTE: As there are many readers who do not see that a composition is\npoetry, unless it be in rhyme, it is for their information that I add\nthis note.\n\nPoetry consists principally in two things\u2014imagery and composition. The\ncomposition of poetry differs from that of prose in the manner of\nmixing long and short syllables together. Take a long syllable out of a\nline of poetry, and put a short one in the room of it, or put a long\nsyllable where a short one should be, and that line will lose its\npoetical harmony. It will have an effect upon the line like that of\nmisplacing a note in a song.\n\nThe imagery in those books called the Prophets appertains altogether to\npoetry. It is fictitious, and often extravagant, and not admissible in\nany other kind of writing than poetry.\n\nTo show that these writings are composed in poetical numbers, I will\ntake ten syllables, as they stand in the book, and make a line of the\nsame number of syllables, (heroic measure) that shall rhyme with the\nlast word. It will then be seen that the composition of those books is\npoetical measure. The instance I shall first produce is from Isaiah:\u2014\n\n    \u201cHear, O ye heavens, and give ear, O earth\n    \u2019T is God himself that calls attention forth.\n\nAnother instance I shall quote is from the mournful Jeremiah, to which\nI shall add two other lines, for the purpose of carrying out the\nfigure, and showing the intention of the poet.\n\n    \u201cO, that mine head were waters and mine eyes\n    Were fountains flowing like the liquid skies;\n    Then would I give the mighty flood release\n    And weep a deluge for the human race.\u201d\u2014Author.]\n\nThere is not, throughout the whole book called the Bible, any word that\ndescribes to us what we call a poet, nor any word that describes what\nwe call poetry. The case is, that the word prophet, to which a later\ntimes have affixed a new idea, was the Bible word for poet, and the\nword \u2018propesying\u2019 meant the art of making poetry. It also meant the art\nof playing poetry to a tune upon any instrument of music.\n\nWe read of prophesying with pipes, tabrets, and horns\u2014of prophesying\nwith harps, with psalteries, with cymbals, and with every other\ninstrument of music then in fashion. Were we now to speak of\nprophesying with a fiddle, or with a pipe and tabor, the expression\nwould have no meaning, or would appear ridiculous, and to some people\ncontemptuous, because we have changed the meaning of the word.\n\nWe are told of Saul being among the prophets, and also that he\nprophesied; but we are not told what they prophesied, nor what he\nprophesied. The case is, there was nothing to tell; for these prophets\nwere a company of musicians and poets, and Saul joined in the concert,\nand this was called prophesying.\n\nThe account given of this affair in the book called Samuel, is, that\nSaul met a company of prophets; a whole company of them! coming down\nwith a psaltery, a tabret, a pipe, and a harp, and that they\nprophesied, and that he prophesied with them. But it appears\nafterwards, that Saul prophesied badly, that is, he performed his part\nbadly; for it is said that an \u201cevil spirit from God [NOTE: As those men\nwho call themselves divines and commentators are very fond of puzzling\none another, I leave them to contest the meaning of the first part of\nthe phrase, that of an evil spirit of God. I keep to my text. I keep to\nthe meaning of the word prophesy.\u2014Author.] came upon Saul, and he\nprophesied.\u201d\n\nNow, were there no other passage in the book called the Bible, than\nthis, to demonstrate to us that we have lost the original meaning of\nthe word prophesy, and substituted another meaning in its place, this\nalone would be sufficient; for it is impossible to use and apply the\nword prophesy, in the place it is here used and applied, if we give to\nit the sense which later times have affixed to it. The manner in which\nit is here used strips it of all religious meaning, and shews that a\nman might then be a prophet, or he might Prophesy, as he may now be a\npoet or a musician, without any regard to the morality or the\nimmorality of his character. The word was originally a term of science,\npromiscuously applied to poetry and to music, and not restricted to any\nsubject upon which poetry and music might be exercised.\n\nDeborah and Barak are called prophets, not because they predicted\nanything, but because they composed the poem or song that bears their\nname, in celebration of an act already done. David is ranked among the\nprophets, for he was a musician, and was also reputed to be (though\nperhaps very erroneously) the author of the Psalms. But Abraham, Isaac,\nand Jacob are not called prophets; it does not appear from any accounts\nwe have, that they could either sing, play music, or make poetry.\n\nWe are told of the greater and the lesser prophets. They might as well\ntell us of the greater and the lesser God; for there cannot be degrees\nin prophesying consistently with its modern sense. But there are\ndegrees in poetry, and there-fore the phrase is reconcilable to the\ncase, when we understand by it the greater and the lesser poets.\n\nIt is altogether unnecessary, after this, to offer any observations\nupon what those men, styled prophets, have written. The axe goes at\nonce to the root, by showing that the original meaning of the word has\nbeen mistaken, and consequently all the inferences that have been drawn\nfrom those books, the devotional respect that has been paid to them,\nand the laboured commentaries that have been written upon them, under\nthat mistaken meaning, are not worth disputing about.\u2014In many things,\nhowever, the writings of the Jewish poets deserve a better fate than\nthat of being bound up, as they now are, with the trash that\naccompanies them, under the abused name of the Word of God.\n\nIf we permit ourselves to conceive right ideas of things, we must\nnecessarily affix the idea, not only of unchangeableness, but of the\nutter impossibility of any change taking place, by any means or\naccident whatever, in that which we would honour with the name of the\nWord of God; and therefore the Word of God cannot exist in any written\nor human language.\n\nThe continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is\nsubject, the want of an universal language which renders translation\nnecessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the\nmistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of\nwilful alteration, are of themselves evidences that human language,\nwhether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the Word of\nGod.\u2014The Word of God exists in something else.\n\nDid the book called the Bible excel in purity of ideas and expression\nall the books now extant in the world, I would not take it for my rule\nof faith, as being the Word of God; because the possibility would\nnevertheless exist of my being imposed upon. But when I see throughout\nthe greatest part of this book scarcely anything but a history of the\ngrossest vices, and a collection of the most paltry and contemptible\ntales, I cannot dishonour my Creator by calling it by his name.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\nOF THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n\nThus much for the Bible; I now go on to the book called the New\nTestament. The new Testament! that is, the \u2018new\u2019 Will, as if there\ncould be two wills of the Creator.\n\nHad it been the object or the intention of Jesus Christ to establish a\nnew religion, he would undoubtedly have written the system himself, or\nprocured it to be written in his life time. But there is no publication\nextant authenticated with his name. All the books called the New\nTestament were written after his death. He was a Jew by birth and by\nprofession; and he was the son of God in like manner that every other\nperson is; for the Creator is the Father of All.\n\nThe first four books, called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do not give\na history of the life of Jesus Christ, but only detached anecdotes of\nhim. It appears from these books, that the whole time of his being a\npreacher was not more than eighteen months; and it was only during this\nshort time that those men became acquainted with him. They make mention\nof him at the age of twelve years, sitting, they say, among the Jewish\ndoctors, asking and answering them questions. As this was several years\nbefore their acquaintance with him began, it is most probable they had\nthis anecdote from his parents. From this time there is no account of\nhim for about sixteen years. Where he lived, or how he employed himself\nduring this interval, is not known. Most probably he was working at his\nfather\u2019s trade, which was that of a carpenter. It does not appear that\nhe had any school education, and the probability is, that he could not\nwrite, for his parents were extremely poor, as appears from their not\nbeing able to pay for a bed when he was born. [NOTE: One of the few\nerrors traceable to Paine\u2019s not having a Bible at hand while writing\nPart I. There is no indication that the family was poor, but the\nreverse may in fact be inferred.\u2014Editor.]\n\nIt is somewhat curious that the three persons whose names are the most\nuniversally recorded were of very obscure parentage. Moses was a\nfoundling; Jesus Christ was born in a stable; and Mahomet was a mule\ndriver. The first and the last of these men were founders of different\nsystems of religion; but Jesus Christ founded no new system. He called\nmen to the practice of moral virtues, and the belief of one God. The\ngreat trait in his character is philanthropy.\n\nThe manner in which he was apprehended shows that he was not much\nknown, at that time; and it shows also that the meetings he then held\nwith his followers were in secret; and that he had given over or\nsuspended preaching publicly. Judas could no otherways betray him than\nby giving information where he was, and pointing him out to the\nofficers that went to arrest him; and the reason for employing and\npaying Judas to do this could arise only from the causes already\nmentioned, that of his not being much known, and living concealed.\n\nThe idea of his concealment, not only agrees very ill with his reputed\ndivinity, but associates with it something of pusillanimity; and his\nbeing betrayed, or in other words, his being apprehended, on the\ninformation of one of his followers, shows that he did not intend to be\napprehended, and consequently that he did not intend to be crucified.\n\nThe Christian mythologists tell us that Christ died for the sins of the\nworld, and that he came on Purpose to die. Would it not then have been\nthe same if he had died of a fever or of the small pox, of old age, or\nof anything else?\n\nThe declaratory sentence which, they say, was passed upon Adam, in case\nhe ate of the apple, was not, that thou shalt surely be crucified, but,\nthou shale surely die. The sentence was death, and not the manner of\ndying. Crucifixion, therefore, or any other particular manner of dying,\nmade no part of the sentence that Adam was to suffer, and consequently,\neven upon their own tactic, it could make no part of the sentence that\nChrist was to suffer in the room of Adam. A fever would have done as\nwell as a cross, if there was any occasion for either.\n\nThis sentence of death, which, they tell us, was thus passed upon Adam,\nmust either have meant dying naturally, that is, ceasing to live, or\nhave meant what these mythologists call damnation; and consequently,\nthe act of dying on the part of Jesus Christ, must, according to their\nsystem, apply as a prevention to one or other of these two things\nhappening to Adam and to us.\n\nThat it does not prevent our dying is evident, because we all die; and\nif their accounts of longevity be true, men die faster since the\ncrucifixion than before: and with respect to the second explanation,\n(including with it the natural death of Jesus Christ as a substitute\nfor the eternal death or damnation of all mankind,) it is impertinently\nrepresenting the Creator as coming off, or revoking the sentence, by a\npun or a quibble upon the word death. That manufacturer of, quibbles,\nSt. Paul, if he wrote the books that bear his name, has helped this\nquibble on by making another quibble upon the word Adam. He makes there\nto be two Adams; the one who sins in fact, and suffers by proxy; the\nother who sins by proxy, and suffers in fact. A religion thus\ninterlarded with quibble, subterfuge, and pun, has a tendency to\ninstruct its professors in the practice of these arts. They acquire the\nhabit without being aware of the cause.\n\nIf Jesus Christ was the being which those mythologists tell us he was,\nand that he came into this world to suffer, which is a word they\nsometimes use instead of \u2018to die,\u2019 the only real suffering he could\nhave endured would have been \u2018to live.\u2019 His existence here was a state\nof exilement or transportation from heaven, and the way back to his\noriginal country was to die.\u2014In fine, everything in this strange system\nis the reverse of what it pretends to be. It is the reverse of truth,\nand I become so tired of examining into its inconsistencies and\nabsurdities, that I hasten to the conclusion of it, in order to proceed\nto something better.\n\nHow much, or what parts of the books called the New Testament, were\nwritten by the persons whose names they bear, is what we can know\nnothing of, neither are we certain in what language they were\noriginally written. The matters they now contain may be classed under\ntwo heads: anecdote, and epistolary correspondence.\n\nThe four books already mentioned, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are\naltogether anecdotal. They relate events after they had taken place.\nThey tell what Jesus Christ did and said, and what others did and said\nto him; and in several instances they relate the same event\ndifferently. Revelation is necessarily out of the question with respect\nto those books; not only because of the disagreement of the writers,\nbut because revelation cannot be applied to the relating of facts by\nthe persons who saw them done, nor to the relating or recording of any\ndiscourse or conversation by those who heard it. The book called the\nActs of the Apostles (an anonymous work) belongs also to the anecdotal\npart.\n\nAll the other parts of the New Testament, except the book of enigmas,\ncalled the Revelations, are a collection of letters under the name of\nepistles; and the forgery of letters has been such a common practice in\nthe world, that the probability is at least equal, whether they are\ngenuine or forged. One thing, however, is much less equivocal, which\nis, that out of the matters contained in those books, together with the\nassistance of some old stories, the church has set up a system of\nreligion very contradictory to the character of the person whose name\nit bears. It has set up a religion of pomp and of revenue in pretended\nimitation of a person whose life was humility and poverty.\n\nThe invention of a purgatory, and of the releasing of souls therefrom,\nby prayers, bought of the church with money; the selling of pardons,\ndispensations, and indulgences, are revenue laws, without bearing that\nname or carrying that appearance. But the case nevertheless is, that\nthose things derive their origin from the proxysm of the crucifixion,\nand the theory deduced therefrom, which was, that one person could\nstand in the place of another, and could perform meritorious services\nfor him. The probability, therefore, is, that the whole theory or\ndoctrine of what is called the redemption (which is said to have been\naccomplished by the act of one person in the room of another) was\noriginally fabricated on purpose to bring forward and build all those\nsecondary and pecuniary redemptions upon; and that the passages in the\nbooks upon which the idea of theory of redemption is built, have been\nmanufactured and fabricated for that purpose. Why are we to give this\nchurch credit, when she tells us that those books are genuine in every\npart, any more than we give her credit for everything else she has told\nus; or for the miracles she says she has performed? That she could\nfabricate writings is certain, because she could write; and the\ncomposition of the writings in question, is of that kind that anybody\nmight do it; and that she did fabricate them is not more inconsistent\nwith probability, than that she should tell us, as she has done, that\nshe could and did work miracles.\n\nSince, then, no external evidence can, at this long distance of time,\nbe produced to prove whether the church fabricated the doctrine called\nredemption or not, (for such evidence, whether for or against, would be\nsubject to the same suspicion of being fabricated,) the case can only\nbe referred to the internal evidence which the thing carries of itself;\nand this affords a very strong presumption of its being a fabrication.\nFor the internal evidence is, that the theory or doctrine of redemption\nhas for its basis an idea of pecuniary justice, and not that of moral\njustice.\n\nIf I owe a person money, and cannot pay him, and he threatens to put me\nin prison, another person can take the debt upon himself, and pay it\nfor me. But if I have committed a crime, every circumstance of the case\nis changed. Moral justice cannot take the innocent for the guilty even\nif the innocent would offer itself. To suppose justice to do this, is\nto destroy the principle of its existence, which is the thing itself.\nIt is then no longer justice. It is indiscriminate revenge.\n\nThis single reflection will show that the doctrine of redemption is\nfounded on a mere pecuniary idea corresponding to that of a debt which\nanother person might pay; and as this pecuniary idea corresponds again\nwith the system of second redemptions, obtained through the means of\nmoney given to the church for pardons, the probability is that the same\npersons fabricated both the one and the other of those theories; and\nthat, in truth, there is no such thing as redemption; that it is\nfabulous; and that man stands in the same relative condition with his\nMaker he ever did stand, since man existed; and that it is his greatest\nconsolation to think so.\n\nLet him believe this, and he will live more consistently and morally,\nthan by any other system. It is by his being taught to contemplate\nhimself as an out-law, as an out-cast, as a beggar, as a mumper, as one\nthrown as it were on a dunghill, at an immense distance from his\nCreator, and who must make his approaches by creeping, and cringing to\nintermediate beings, that he conceives either a contemptuous disregard\nfor everything under the name of religion, or becomes indifferent, or\nturns what he calls devout. In the latter case, he consumes his life in\ngrief, or the affectation of it. His prayers are reproaches. His\nhumility is ingratitude. He calls himself a worm, and the fertile earth\na dunghill; and all the blessings of life by the thankless name of\nvanities. He despises the choicest gift of God to man, the GIFT OF\nREASON; and having endeavoured to force upon himself the belief of a\nsystem against which reason revolts, he ungratefully calls it human\nreason, as if man could give reason to himself.\n\nYet, with all this strange appearance of humility, and this contempt\nfor human reason, he ventures into the boldest presumptions. He finds\nfault with everything. His selfishness is never satisfied; his\ningratitude is never at an end. He takes on himself to direct the\nAlmighty what to do, even in the govemment of the universe. He prays\ndictatorially. When it is sunshine, he prays for rain, and when it is\nrain, he prays for sunshine. He follows the same idea in everything\nthat he prays for; for what is the amount of all his prayers, but an\nattempt to make the Almighty change his mind, and act otherwise than he\ndoes? It is as if he were to say\u2014thou knowest not so well as I.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\nIN WHAT THE TRUE REVELATION CONSISTS.\n\n\nBut some perhaps will say\u2014Are we to have no word of God\u2014no revelation?\nI answer yes. There is a Word of God; there is a revelation.\n\nTHE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word,\nwhich no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh\nuniversally to man.\n\nHuman language is local and changeable, and is therefore incapable of\nbeing used as the means of unchangeable and universal information. The\nidea that God sent Jesus Christ to publish, as they say, the glad\ntidings to all nations, from one end of the earth unto the other, is\nconsistent only with the ignorance of those who know nothing of the\nextent of the world, and who believed, as those world-saviours\nbelieved, and continued to believe for several centuries, (and that in\ncontradiction to the discoveries of philosophers and the experience of\nnavigators,) that the earth was flat like a trencher; and that a man\nmight walk to the end of it.\n\nBut how was Jesus Christ to make anything known to all nations? He\ncould speak but one language, which was Hebrew; and there are in the\nworld several hundred languages. Scarcely any two nations speak the\nsame language, or understand each other; and as to translations, every\nman who knows anything of languages, knows that it is impossible to\ntranslate from one language into another, not only without losing a\ngreat part of the original, but frequently of mistaking the sense; and\nbesides all this, the art of printing was wholly unknown at the time\nChrist lived.\n\nIt is always necessary that the means that are to accomplish any end be\nequal to the accomplishment of that end, or the end cannot be\naccomplished. It is in this that the difference between finite and\ninfinite power and wisdom discovers itself. Man frequently fails in\naccomplishing his end, from a natural inability of the power to the\npurpose; and frequently from the want of wisdom to apply power\nproperly. But it is impossible for infinite power and wisdom to fail as\nman faileth. The means it useth are always equal to the end: but human\nlanguage, more especially as there is not an universal language, is\nincapable of being used as an universal means of unchangeable and\nuniform information; and therefore it is not the means that God useth\nin manifesting himself universally to man.\n\nIt is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a word\nof God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language,\nindependently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various\nas they be. It is an ever existing original, which every man can read.\nIt cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it\ncannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the\nwill of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself\nfrom one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and\nto all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is\nnecessary for man to know of God.\n\nDo we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the immensity of the\ncreation. Do we want to contemplate his wisdom? We see it in the\nunchangeable order by which the incomprehensible Whole is governed. Do\nwe want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in the abundance with\nwhich he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy? We see\nit in his not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful. In\nfine, do we want to know what God is? Search not the book called the\nscripture, which any human hand might make, but the scripture called\nthe Creation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\nCONCERNING GOD, AND THE LIGHTS CAST ON HIS EXISTENCE AND ATTRIBUTES BY\nTHE BIBLE.\n\n\nThe only idea man can affix to the name of God, is that of a first\ncause, the cause of all things. And, incomprehensibly difficult as it\nis for a man to conceive what a first cause is, he arrives at the\nbelief of it, from the tenfold greater difficulty of disbelieving it.\nIt is difficult beyond description to conceive that space can have no\nend; but it is more difficult to conceive an end. It is difficult\nbeyond the power of man to conceive an eternal duration of what we call\ntime; but it is more impossible to conceive a time when there shall be\nno time.\n\nIn like manner of reasoning, everything we behold carries in itself the\ninternal evidence that it did not make itself. Every man is an evidence\nto himself, that he did not make himself; neither could his father make\nhimself, nor his grandfather, nor any of his race; neither could any\ntree, plant, or animal make itself; and it is the conviction arising\nfrom this evidence, that carries us on, as it were, by necessity, to\nthe belief of a first cause eternally existing, of a nature totally\ndifferent to any material existence we know of, and by the power of\nwhich all things exist; and this first cause, man calls God.\n\nIt is only by the exercise of reason, that man can discover God. Take\naway that reason, and he would be incapable of understanding anything;\nand in this case it would be just as consistent to read even the book\ncalled the Bible to a horse as to a man. How then is it that those\npeople pretend to reject reason?\n\nAlmost the only parts in the book called the Bible, that convey to us\nany idea of God, are some chapters in Job, and the 19th Psalm; I\nrecollect no other. Those parts are true deistical compositions; for\nthey treat of the Deity through his works. They take the book of\nCreation as the word of God; they refer to no other book; and all the\ninferences they make are drawn from that volume.\n\nI insert in this place the 19th Psalm, as paraphrased into English\nverse by Addison. I recollect not the prose, and where I write this I\nhave not the opportunity of seeing it:\n\n    The spacious firmament on high,\n    With all the blue etherial sky,\n    And spangled heavens, a shining frame,\n    Their great original proclaim.\n    The unwearied sun, from day to day,\n    Does his Creator\u2019s power display,\n    And publishes to every land\n    The work of an Almighty hand.\n    Soon as the evening shades prevail,\n    The moon takes up the wondrous tale,\n    And nightly to the list\u2019ning earth\n    Repeats the story of her birth;\n    Whilst all the stars that round her burn,\n    And all the planets, in their turn,\n    Confirm the tidings as they roll,\n    And spread the truth from pole to pole.\n    What though in solemn silence all\n    Move round this dark terrestrial ball\n    What though no real voice, nor sound,\n    Amidst their radiant orbs be found,\n    In reason\u2019s ear they all rejoice,\n    And utter forth a glorious voice,\n    Forever singing as they shine,\n    THE HAND THAT MADE US IS DIVINE.\n\nWhat more does man want to know, than that the hand or power that made\nthese things is divine, is omnipotent? Let him believe this, with the\nforce it is impossible to repel if he permits his reason to act, and\nhis rule of moral life will follow of course.\n\nThe allusions in Job have all of them the same tendency with this\nPsalm; that of deducing or proving a truth that would be otherwise\nunknown, from truths already known.\n\nI recollect not enough of the passages in Job to insert them correctly;\nbut there is one that occurs to me that is applicable to the subject I\nam speaking upon. \u201cCanst thou by searching find out God; canst thou\nfind out the Almighty to perfection?\u201d\n\nI know not how the printers have pointed this passage, for I keep no\nBible; but it contains two distinct questions that admit of distinct\nanswers.\n\nFirst, Canst thou by searching find out God? Yes. Because, in the first\nplace, I know I did not make myself, and yet I have existence; and by\nsearching into the nature of other things, I find that no other thing\ncould make itself; and yet millions of other things exist; therefore it\nis, that I know, by positive conclusion resulting from this search,\nthat there is a power superior to all those things, and that power is\nGod.\n\nSecondly, Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection? No. Not only\nbecause the power and wisdom He has manifested in the structure of the\nCreation that I behold is to me incomprehensible; but because even this\nmanifestation, great as it is is probably but a small display of that\nimmensity of power and wisdom, by which millions of other worlds, to me\ninvisible by their distance, were created and continue to exist.\n\nIt is evident that both of these questions were put to the reason of\nthe person to whom they are supposed to have been addressed; and it is\nonly by admitting the first question to be answered affirmatively, that\nthe second could follow. It would have been unnecessary, and even\nabsurd, to have put a second question, more difficult than the first,\nif the first question had been answered negatively. The two questions\nhave different objects; the first refers to the existence of God, the\nsecond to his attributes. Reason can discover the one, but it falls\ninfinitely short in discovering the whole of the other.\n\nI recollect not a single passage in all the writings ascribed to the\nmen called apostles, that conveys any idea of what God is. Those\nwritings are chiefly controversial; and the gloominess of the subject\nthey dwell upon, that of a man dying in agony on a cross, is better\nsuited to the gloomy genius of a monk in a cell, by whom it is not\nimpossible they were written, than to any man breathing the open air of\nthe Creation. The only passage that occurs to me, that has any\nreference to the works of God, by which only his power and wisdom can\nbe known, is related to have been spoken by Jesus Christ, as a remedy\nagainst distrustful care. \u201cBehold the lilies of the field, they toil\nnot, neither do they spin.\u201d This, however, is far inferior to the\nallusions in Job and in the 19th Psalm; but it is similar in idea, and\nthe modesty of the imagery is correspondent to the modesty of the man.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\nOF THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHRISTIANS; AND THE TRUE THEOLOGY.\n\n\nAs to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of\natheism; a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in\na man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of man-ism\nwith but little deism, and is as near to atheism as twilight is to\ndarkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which\nit calls a redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the\nearth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious or an\nirreligious eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into\nshade.\n\nThe effect of this obscurity has been that of turning everything upside\ndown, and representing it in reverse; and among the revolutions it has\nthus magically produced, it has made a revolution in Theology.\n\nThat which is now called natural philosophy, embracing the whole circle\nof science, of which astronomy occupies the chief place, is the study\nof the works of God, and of the power and wisdom of God in his works,\nand is the true theology.\n\nAs to the theology that is now studied in its place, it is the study of\nhuman opinions and of human fancies concerning God. It is not the study\nof God himself in the works that he has made, but in the works or\nwritings that man has made; and it is not among the least of the\nmischiefs that the Christian system has done to the world, that it has\nabandoned the original and beautiful system of theology, like a\nbeautiful innocent, to distress and reproach, to make room for the hag\nof superstition.\n\nThe Book of Job and the 19th Psalm, which even the church admits to be\nmore ancient than the chronological order in which they stand in the\nbook called the Bible, are theological orations conformable to the\noriginal system of theology. The internal evidence of those orations\nproves to a demonstration that the study and contemplation of the works\nof creation, and of the power and wisdom of God revealed and manifested\nin those works, made a great part of the religious devotion of the\ntimes in which they were written; and it was this devotional study and\ncontemplation that led to the discovery of the principles upon which\nwhat are now called Sciences are established; and it is to the\ndiscovery of these principles that almost all the Arts that contribute\nto the convenience of human life owe their existence. Every principal\nart has some science for its parent, though the person who mechanically\nperforms the work does not always, and but very seldom, perceive the\nconnection.\n\nIt is a fraud of the Christian system to call the sciences \u2018human\ninventions;\u2019 it is only the application of them that is human. Every\nscience has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and\nunalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed.\nMan cannot make principles, he can only discover them.\n\nFor example: Every person who looks at an almanack sees an account when\nan eclipse will take place, and he sees also that it never fails to\ntake place according to the account there given. This shows that man is\nacquainted with the laws by which the heavenly bodies move. But it\nwould be something worse than ignorance, were any church on earth to\nsay that those laws are an human invention.\n\nIt would also be ignorance, or something worse, to say that the\nscientific principles, by the aid of which man is enabled to calculate\nand foreknow when an eclipse will take place, are an human invention.\nMan cannot invent any thing that is eternal and immutable; and the\nscientific principles he employs for this purpose must, and are, of\nnecessity, as eternal and immutable as the laws by which the heavenly\nbodies move, or they could not be used as they are to ascertain the\ntime when, and the manner how, an eclipse will take place.\n\nThe scientific principles that man employs to obtain the foreknowledge\nof an eclipse, or of any thing else relating to the motion of the\nheavenly bodies, are contained chiefly in that part of science that is\ncalled trigonometry, or the properties of a triangle, which, when\napplied to the study of the heavenly bodies, is called astronomy; when\napplied to direct the course of a ship on the ocean, it is called\nnavigation; when applied to the construction of figures drawn by a rule\nand compass, it is called geometry; when applied to the construction of\nplans of edifices, it is called architecture; when applied to the\nmeasurement of any portion of the surface of the earth, it is called\nland-surveying. In fine, it is the soul of science. It is an eternal\ntruth: it contains the mathematical demonstration of which man speaks,\nand the extent of its uses are unknown.\n\nIt may be said, that man can make or draw a triangle, and therefore a\ntriangle is an human invention.\n\nBut the triangle, when drawn, is no other than the image of the\nprinciple: it is a delineation to the eye, and from thence to the mind,\nof a principle that would otherwise be imperceptible. The triangle does\nnot make the principle, any more than a candle taken into a room that\nwas dark, makes the chairs and tables that before were invisible. All\nthe properties of a triangle exist independently of the figure, and\nexisted before any triangle was drawn or thought of by man. Man had no\nmore to do in the formation of those properties or principles, than he\nhad to do in making the laws by which the heavenly bodies move; and\ntherefore the one must have the same divine origin as the other.\n\nIn the same manner as, it may be said, that man can make a triangle, so\nalso, may it be said, he can make the mechanical instrument called a\nlever. But the principle by which the lever acts, is a thing distinct\nfrom the instrument, and would exist if the instrument did not; it\nattaches itself to the instrument after it is made; the instrument,\ntherefore, can act no otherwise than it does act; neither can all the\nefforts of human invention make it act otherwise. That which, in all\nsuch cases, man calls the effect, is no other than the principle itself\nrendered perceptible to the senses.\n\nSince, then, man cannot make principles, from whence did he gain a\nknowledge of them, so as to be able to apply them, not only to things\non earth, but to ascertain the motion of bodies so immensely distant\nfrom him as all the heavenly bodies are? From whence, I ask, could he\ngain that knowledge, but from the study of the true theology?\n\nIt is the structure of the universe that has taught this knowledge to\nman. That structure is an ever-existing exhibition of every principle\nupon which every part of mathematical science is founded. The offspring\nof this science is mechanics; for mechanics is no other than the\nprinciples of science applied practically. The man who proportions the\nseveral parts of a mill uses the same scientific principles as if he\nhad the power of constructing an universe, but as he cannot give to\nmatter that invisible agency by which all the component parts of the\nimmense machine of the universe have influence upon each other, and act\nin motional unison together, without any apparent contact, and to which\nman has given the name of attraction, gravitation, and repulsion, he\nsupplies the place of that agency by the humble imitation of teeth and\ncogs. All the parts of man\u2019s microcosm must visibly touch. But could he\ngain a knowledge of that agency, so as to be able to apply it in\npractice, we might then say that another canonical book of the word of\nGod had been discovered.\n\nIf man could alter the properties of the lever, so also could he alter\nthe properties of the triangle: for a lever (taking that sort of lever\nwhich is called a steel-yard, for the sake of explanation) forms, when\nin motion, a triangle. The line it descends from, (one point of that\nline being in the fulcrum,) the line it descends to, and the chord of\nthe arc, which the end of the lever describes in the air, are the three\nsides of a triangle. The other arm of the lever describes also a\ntriangle; and the corresponding sides of those two triangles,\ncalculated scientifically, or measured geometrically,\u2014and also the\nsines, tangents, and secants generated from the angles, and\ngeometrically measured,\u2014have the same proportions to each other as the\ndifferent weights have that will balance each other on the lever,\nleaving the weight of the lever out of the case.\n\nIt may also be said, that man can make a wheel and axis; that he can\nput wheels of different magnitudes together, and produce a mill. Still\nthe case comes back to the same point, which is, that he did not make\nthe principle that gives the wheels those powers. This principle is as\nunalterable as in the former cases, or rather it is the same principle\nunder a different appearance to the eye.\n\nThe power that two wheels of different magnitudes have upon each other\nis in the same proportion as if the semi-diameter of the two wheels\nwere joined together and made into that kind of lever I have described,\nsuspended at the part where the semi-diameters join; for the two\nwheels, scientifically considered, are no other than the two circles\ngenerated by the motion of the compound lever.\n\nIt is from the study of the true theology that all our knowledge of\nscience is derived; and it is from that knowledge that all the arts\nhave originated.\n\nThe Almighty lecturer, by displaying the principles of science in the\nstructure of the universe, has invited man to study and to imitation.\nIt is as if he had said to the inhabitants of this globe that we call\nours, \u201cI have made an earth for man to dwell upon, and I have rendered\nthe starry heavens visible, to teach him science and the arts. He can\nnow provide for his own comfort, AND LEARN FROM MY MUNIFICENCE TO ALL,\nTO BE KIND TO EACH OTHER.\u201d\n\nOf what use is it, unless it be to teach man something, that his eye is\nendowed with the power of beholding, to an incomprehensible distance,\nan immensity of worlds revolving in the ocean of space? Or of what use\nis it that this immensity of worlds is visible to man? What has man to\ndo with the Pleiades, with Orion, with Sirius, with the star he calls\nthe north star, with the moving orbs he has named Saturn, Jupiter,\nMars, Venus, and Mercury, if no uses are to follow from their being\nvisible? A less power of vision would have been sufficient for man, if\nthe immensity he now possesses were given only to waste itself, as it\nwere, on an immense desert of space glittering with shows.\n\nIt is only by contemplating what he calls the starry heavens, as the\nbook and school of science, that he discovers any use in their being\nvisible to him, or any advantage resulting from his immensity of\nvision. But when he contemplates the subject in this light, he sees an\nadditional motive for saying, that nothing was made in vain; for in\nvain would be this power of vision if it taught man nothing.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\nTHE EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANISM ON EDUCATION; PROPOSED REFORMS\n\n\nAs the Christian system of faith has made a revolution in theology, so\nalso has it made a revolution in the state of learning. That which is\nnow called learning, was not learning originally. Learning does not\nconsist, as the schools now make it consist, in the knowledge of\nlanguages, but in the knowledge of things to which language gives\nnames.\n\nThe Greeks were a learned people, but learning with them did not\nconsist in speaking Greek, any more than in a Roman\u2019s speaking Latin,\nor a Frenchman\u2019s speaking French, or an Englishman\u2019s speaking English.\nFrom what we know of the Greeks, it does not appear that they knew or\nstudied any language but their own, and this was one cause of their\nbecoming so learned; it afforded them more time to apply themselves to\nbetter studies. The schools of the Greeks were schools of science and\nphilosophy, and not of languages; and it is in the knowledge of the\nthings that science and philosophy teach that learning consists.\n\nAlmost all the scientific learning that now exists, came to us from the\nGreeks, or the people who spoke the Greek language. It therefore became\nnecessary to the people of other nations, who spoke a different\nlanguage, that some among them should learn the Greek language, in\norder that the learning the Greeks had might be made known in those\nnations, by translating the Greek books of science and philosophy into\nthe mother tongue of each nation.\n\nThe study, therefore, of the Greek language (and in the same manner for\nthe Latin) was no other than the drudgery business of a linguist; and\nthe language thus obtained, was no other than the means, or as it were\nthe tools, employed to obtain the learning the Greeks had. It made no\npart of the learning itself; and was so distinct from it as to make it\nexceedingly probable that the persons who had studied Greek\nsufficiently to translate those works, such for instance as Euclid\u2019s\nElements, did not understand any of the learning the works contained.\n\nAs there is now nothing new to be learned from the dead languages, all\nthe useful books being already translated, the languages are become\nuseless, and the time expended in teaching and in learning them is\nwasted. So far as the study of languages may contribute to the progress\nand communication of knowledge (for it has nothing to do with the\ncreation of knowledge) it is only in the living languages that new\nknowledge is to be found; and certain it is, that, in general, a youth\nwill learn more of a living language in one year, than of a dead\nlanguage in seven; and it is but seldom that the teacher knows much of\nit himself. The difficulty of learning the dead languages does not\narise from any superior abstruseness in the languages themselves, but\nin their being dead, and the pronunciation entirely lost. It would be\nthe same thing with any other language when it becomes dead. The best\nGreek linguist that now exists does not understand Greek so well as a\nGrecian plowman did, or a Grecian milkmaid; and the same for the Latin,\ncompared with a plowman or a milkmaid of the Romans; and with respect\nto pronunciation and idiom, not so well as the cows that she milked. It\nwould therefore be advantageous to the state of learning to abolish the\nstudy of the dead languages, and to make learning consist, as it\noriginally did, in scientific knowledge.\n\nThe apology that is sometimes made for continuing to teach the dead\nlanguages is, that they are taught at a time when a child is not\ncapable of exerting any other mental faculty than that of memory. But\nthis is altogether erroneous. The human mind has a natural disposition\nto scientific knowledge, and to the things connected with it. The first\nand favourite amusement of a child, even before it begins to play, is\nthat of imitating the works of man. It builds houses with cards or\nsticks; it navigates the little ocean of a bowl of water with a paper\nboat; or dams the stream of a gutter, and contrives something which it\ncalls a mill; and it interests itself in the fate of its works with a\ncare that resembles affection. It afterwards goes to school, where its\ngenius is killed by the barren study of a dead language, and the\nphilosopher is lost in the linguist.\n\nBut the apology that is now made for continuing to teach the dead\nlanguages, could not be the cause at first of cutting down learning to\nthe narrow and humble sphere of linguistry; the cause therefore must be\nsought for elsewhere. In all researches of this kind, the best evidence\nthat can be produced, is the internal evidence the thing carries with\nitself, and the evidence of circumstances that unites with it; both of\nwhich, in this case, are not difficult to be discovered.\n\nPutting then aside, as matter of distinct consideration, the outrage\noffered to the moral justice of God, by supposing him to make the\ninnocent suffer for the guilty, and also the loose morality and low\ncontrivance of supposing him to change himself into the shape of a man,\nin order to make an excuse to himself for not executing his supposed\nsentence upon Adam; putting, I say, those things aside as matter of\ndistinct consideration, it is certain that what is called the christian\nsystem of faith, including in it the whimsical account of the\ncreation\u2014the strange story of Eve, the snake, and the apple\u2014the\namphibious idea of a man-god\u2014the corporeal idea of the death of a\ngod\u2014the mythological idea of a family of gods, and the christian system\nof arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three, are all\nirreconcilable, not only to the divine gift of reason, that God has\ngiven to man, but to the knowledge that man gains of the power and\nwisdom of God by the aid of the sciences, and by studying the structure\nof the universe that God has made.\n\nThe setters up, therefore, and the advocates of the Christian system of\nfaith, could not but foresee that the continually progressive knowledge\nthat man would gain by the aid of science, of the power and wisdom of\nGod, manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all the works\nof creation, would militate against, and call into question, the truth\nof their system of faith; and therefore it became necessary to their\npurpose to cut learning down to a size less dangerous to their project,\nand this they effected by restricting the idea of learning to the dead\nstudy of dead languages.\n\nThey not only rejected the study of science out of the christian\nschools, but they persecuted it; and it is only within about the last\ntwo centuries that the study has been revived. So late as 1610,\nGalileo, a Florentine, discovered and introduced the use of telescopes,\nand by applying them to observe the motions and appearances of the\nheavenly bodies, afforded additional means for ascertaining the true\nstructure of the universe. Instead of being esteemed for these\ndiscoveries, he was sentenced to renounce them, or the opinions\nresulting from them, as a damnable heresy. And prior to that time\nVirgilius was condemned to be burned for asserting the antipodes, or in\nother words, that the earth was a globe, and habitable in every part\nwhere there was land; yet the truth of this is now too well known even\nto be told. [NOTE: I cannot discover the source of this statement\nconcerning the ancient author whose Irish name Feirghill was Latinized\ninto Virgilius. The British Museum possesses a copy of the work\n(Decalogiunt) which was the pretext of the charge of heresy made by\nBoniface, Archbishop of Mayence, against Virgilius, Abbot\u2014bishop of\nSalzburg, These were leaders of the rival \u201cBritish\u201d and \u201cRoman parties,\nand the British champion made a countercharge against Boniface of\nirreligious practices.\u201d Boniface had to express a \u201cregret,\u201d but none\nthe less pursued his rival. The Pope, Zachary II., decided that if his\nalleged \u201cdoctrine, against God and his soul, that beneath the earth\nthere is another world, other men, or sun and moon,\u201d should be\nacknowledged by Virgilius, he should be excommunicated by a Council and\ncondemned with canonical sanctions. Whatever may have been the fate\ninvolved by condemnation with \u201ccanonicis sanctionibus,\u201d in the middle\nof the eighth century, it did not fall on Virgilius. His accuser,\nBoniface, was martyred, 755, and it is probable that Virgilius\nharmonied his Antipodes with orthodoxy. The gravamen of the heresy\nseems to have been the suggestion that there were men not of the\nprogeny of Adam. Virgilius was made Bishop of Salzburg in 768. He bore\nuntil his death, 789, the curious title, \u201cGeometer and Solitary,\u201d or\n\u201clone wayfarer\u201d (Solivagus). A suspicion of heresy clung to his memory\nuntil 1233, when he was raised by Gregory IX, to sainthood beside his\naccuser, St. Boniface.\u2014Editor. (Conway)]\n\nIf the belief of errors not morally bad did no mischief, it would make\nno part of the moral duty of man to oppose and remove them. There was\nno moral ill in believing the earth was flat like a trencher, any more\nthan there was moral virtue in believing it was round like a globe;\nneither was there any moral ill in believing that the Creator made no\nother world than this, any more than there was moral virtue in\nbelieving that he made millions, and that the infinity of space is\nfilled with worlds. But when a system of religion is made to grow out\nof a supposed system of creation that is not true, and to unite itself\ntherewith in a manner almost inseparable therefrom, the case assumes an\nentirely different ground. It is then that errors, not morally bad,\nbecome fraught with the same mischiefs as if they were. It is then that\nthe truth, though otherwise indifferent itself, becomes an essential,\nby becoming the criterion that either confirms by corresponding\nevidence, or denies by contradictory evidence, the reality of the\nreligion itself. In this view of the case it is the moral duty of man\nto obtain every possible evidence that the structure of the heavens, or\nany other part of creation affords, with respect to systems of\nreligion. But this, the supporters or partizans of the christian\nsystem, as if dreading the result, incessantly opposed, and not only\nrejected the sciences, but persecuted the professors. Had Newton or\nDescartes lived three or four hundred years ago, and pursued their\nstudies as they did, it is most probable they would not have lived to\nfinish them; and had Franklin drawn lightning from the clouds at the\nsame time, it would have been at the hazard of expiring for it in\nflames.\n\nLater times have laid all the blame upon the Goths and Vandals, but,\nhowever unwilling the partizans of the Christian system may be to\nbelieve or to acknowledge it, it is nevertheless true, that the age of\nignorance commenced with the Christian system. There was more knowledge\nin the world before that period, than for many centuries afterwards;\nand as to religious knowledge, the Christian system, as already said,\nwas only another species of mythology; and the mythology to which it\nsucceeded, was a corruption of an ancient system of theism. [NOTE by\nPaine: It is impossible for us now to know at what time the heathen\nmythology began; but it is certain, from the internal evidence that it\ncarries, that it did not begin in the same state or condition in which\nit ended. All the gods of that mythology, except Saturn, were of modern\ninvention. The supposed reign of Saturn was prior to that which is\ncalled the heathen mythology, and was so far a species of theism that\nit admitted the belief of only one God. Saturn is supposed to have\nabdicated the govemment in favour of his three sons and one daughter,\nJupiter, Pluto, Neptune, and Juno; after this, thousands of other gods\nand demigods were imaginarily created, and the calendar of gods\nincreased as fast as the calendar of saints and the calendar of courts\nhave increased since.\n\nAll the corruptions that have taken place, in theology and in religion\nhave been produced by admitting of what man calls \u2018revealed religion.\u2019\nThe mythologists pretended to more revealed religion than the\nchristians do. They had their oracles and their priests, who were\nsupposed to receive and deliver the word of God verbally on almost all\noccasions.\n\nSince then all corruptions down from Moloch to modern\npredestinarianism, and the human sacrifices of the heathens to the\nchristian sacrifice of the Creator, have been produced by admitting of\nwhat is called revealed religion, the most effectual means to prevent\nall such evils and impositions is, not to admit of any other revelation\nthan that which is manifested in the book of Creation., and to\ncontemplate the Creation as the only true and real word of God that\never did or ever will exist; and every thing else called the word of\nGod is fable and imposition.\u2014Author.]\n\nIt is owing to this long interregnum of science, and to no other cause,\nthat we have now to look back through a vast chasm of many hundred\nyears to the respectable characters we call the Ancients. Had the\nprogression of knowledge gone on proportionably with the stock that\nbefore existed, that chasm would have been filled up with characters\nrising superior in knowledge to each other; and those Ancients we now\nso much admire would have appeared respectably in the background of the\nscene. But the christian system laid all waste; and if we take our\nstand about the beginning of the sixteenth century, we look back\nthrough that long chasm, to the times of the Ancients, as over a vast\nsandy desert, in which not a shrub appears to intercept the vision to\nthe fertile hills beyond.\n\nIt is an inconsistency scarcely possible to be credited, that any thing\nshould exist, under the name of a religion, that held it to be\nirreligious to study and contemplate the structure of the universe that\nGod had made. But the fact is too well established to be denied. The\nevent that served more than any other to break the first link in this\nlong chain of despotic ignorance, is that known by the name of the\nReformation by Luther. From that time, though it does not appear to\nhave made any part of the intention of Luther, or of those who are\ncalled Reformers, the Sciences began to revive, and Liberality, their\nnatural associate, began to appear. This was the only public good the\nReformation did; for, with respect to religious good, it might as well\nnot have taken place. The mythology still continued the same; and a\nmultiplicity of National Popes grew out of the downfall of the Pope of\nChristendom.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\nCOMPARISON OF CHRISTIANISM WITH THE RELIGIOUS IDEAS INSPIRED BY NATURE\n\n\nHaving thus shewn, from the internal evidence of things, the cause that\nproduced a change in the state of learning, and the motive for\nsubstituting the study of the dead languages, in the place of the\nSciences, I proceed, in addition to the several observations already\nmade in the former part of this work, to compare, or rather to\nconfront, the evidence that the structure of the universe affords, with\nthe christian system of religion. But as I cannot begin this part\nbetter than by referring to the ideas that occurred to me at an early\npart of life, and which I doubt not have occurred in some degree to\nalmost every other person at one time or other, I shall state what\nthose ideas were, and add thereto such other matter as shall arise out\nof the subject, giving to the whole, by way of preface, a short\nintroduction.\n\nMy father being of the quaker profession, it was my good fortune to\nhave an exceedingly good moral education, and a tolerable stock of\nuseful learning. Though I went to the grammar school, I did not learn\nLatin, not only because I had no inclination to learn languages, but\nbecause of the objection the quakers have against the books in which\nthe language is taught. But this did not prevent me from being\nacquainted with the subjects of all the Latin books used in the school.\n\nThe natural bent of my mind was to science. I had some turn, and I\nbelieve some talent for poetry; but this I rather repressed than\nencouraged, as leading too much into the field of imagination. As soon\nas I was able, I purchased a pair of globes, and attended the\nphilosophical lectures of Martin and Ferguson, and became afterwards\nacquainted with Dr. Bevis, of the society called the Royal Society,\nthen living in the Temple, and an excellent astronomer.\n\nI had no disposition for what was called politics. It presented to my\nmind no other idea than is contained in the word jockeyship. When,\ntherefore, I turned my thoughts towards matters of government, I had to\nform a system for myself, that accorded with the moral and philosophic\nprinciples in which I had been educated. I saw, or at least I thought I\nsaw, a vast scene opening itself to the world in the affairs of\nAmerica; and it appeared to me, that unless the Americans changed the\nplan they were then pursuing, with respect to the government of\nEngland, and declared themselves independent, they would not only\ninvolve themselves in a multiplicity of new difficulties, but shut out\nthe prospect that was then offering itself to mankind through their\nmeans. It was from these motives that I published the work known by the\nname of Common Sense, which is the first work I ever did publish, and\nso far as I can judge of myself, I believe I should never have been\nknown in the world as an author on any subject whatever, had it not\nbeen for the affairs of America. I wrote Common Sense the latter end of\nthe year 1775, and published it the first of January, 1776.\nIndependence was declared the fourth of July following. [NOTE: The\npamphlet Common Sense was first advertised, as \u201cjust published,\u201d on\nJanuary 10, 1776. His plea for the Officers of Excise, written before\nleaving England, was printed, but not published until 1793. Despite his\nreiterated assertion that Common Sense was the first work he ever\npublished the notion that he was \u201cjunius\u201d still finds some believers.\nAn indirect comment on our Paine-Junians may be found in Part 2 of this\nwork where Paine says a man capable of writing Homer \u201cwould not have\nthrown away his own fame by giving it to another.\u201d It is probable that\nPaine ascribed the Letters of Junius to Thomas Hollis. His friend F.\nLanthenas, in his translation of the Age of Reason (1794) advertises\nhis translation of the Letters of Junius from the English \u201c(Thomas\nHollis).\u201d This he could hardly have done without consultation with\nPaine. Unfortunately this translation of Junius cannot be found either\nin the Bibliotheque Nationale or the British Museum, and it cannot be\nsaid whether it contains any attempt at an identification of\nJunius\u2014Editor.]\n\nAny person, who has made observations on the state and progress of the\nhuman mind, by observing his own, can not but have observed, that there\nare two distinct classes of what are called Thoughts; those that we\nproduce in ourselves by reflection and the act of thinking, and those\nthat bolt into the mind of their own accord. I have always made it a\nrule to treat those voluntary visitors with civility, taking care to\nexamine, as well as I was able, if they were worth entertaining; and it\nis from them I have acquired almost all the knowledge that I have. As\nto the learning that any person gains from school education, it serves\nonly, like a small capital, to put him in the way of beginning learning\nfor himself afterwards. Every person of learning is finally his own\nteacher; the reason of which is, that principles, being of a distinct\nquality to circumstances, cannot be impressed upon the memory; their\nplace of mental residence is the understanding, and they are never so\nlasting as when they begin by conception. Thus much for the\nintroductory part.\n\nFrom the time I was capable of conceiving an idea, and acting upon it\nby reflection, I either doubted the truth of the christian system, or\nthought it to be a strange affair; I scarcely knew which it was: but I\nwell remember, when about seven or eight years of age, hearing a sermon\nread by a relation of mine, who was a great devotee of the church, upon\nthe subject of what is called Redemption by the death of the Son of\nGod. After the sermon was ended, I went into the garden, and as I was\ngoing down the garden steps (for I perfectly recollect the spot) I\nrevolted at the recollection of what I had heard, and thought to myself\nthat it was making God Almighty act like a passionate man, that killed\nhis son, when he could not revenge himself any other way; and as I was\nsure a man would be hanged that did such a thing, I could not see for\nwhat purpose they preached such sermons. This was not one of those kind\nof thoughts that had any thing in it of childish levity; it was to me a\nserious reflection, arising from the idea I had that God was too good\nto do such an action, and also too almighty to be under any necessity\nof doing it. I believe in the same manner to this moment; and I\nmoreover believe, that any system of religion that has anything in it\nthat shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system.\n\nIt seems as if parents of the christian profession were ashamed to tell\ntheir children any thing about the principles of their religion. They\nsometimes instruct them in morals, and talk to them of the goodness of\nwhat they call Providence; for the Christian mythology has five\ndeities: there is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, the\nGod Providence, and the Goddess Nature. But the christian story of God\nthe Father putting his son to death, or employing people to do it, (for\nthat is the plain language of the story,) cannot be told by a parent to\na child; and to tell him that it was done to make mankind happier and\nbetter, is making the story still worse; as if mankind could be\nimproved by the example of murder; and to tell him that all this is a\nmystery, is only making an excuse for the incredibility of it.\n\nHow different is this to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The\ntrue deist has but one Deity; and his religion consists in\ncontemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his\nworks, and in endeavouring to imitate him in every thing moral,\nscientifical, and mechanical.\n\nThe religion that approaches the nearest of all others to true Deism,\nin the moral and benign part thereof, is that professed by the quakers:\nbut they have contracted themselves too much by leaving the works of\nGod out of their system. Though I reverence their philanthropy, I can\nnot help smiling at the conceit, that if the taste of a quaker could\nhave been consulted at the creation, what a silent and drab-colored\ncreation it would have been! Not a flower would have blossomed its\ngaieties, nor a bird been permitted to sing.\n\nQuitting these reflections, I proceed to other matters. After I had\nmade myself master of the use of the globes, and of the orrery, [NOTE\nby Paine: As this book may fall into the bands of persons who do not\nknow what an orrery is, it is for their information I add this note, as\nthe name gives no idea of the uses of the thing. The orrery has its\nname from the person who invented it. It is a machinery of clock-work,\nrepresenting the universe in miniature: and in which the revolution of\nthe earth round itself and round the sun, the revolution of the moon\nround the earth, the revolution of the planets round the sun, their\nrelative distances from the sun, as the center of the whole system,\ntheir relative distances from each other, and their different\nmagnitudes, are represented as they really exist in what we call the\nheavens.\u2014Author.] and conceived an idea of the infinity of space, and\nof the eternal divisibility of matter, and obtained, at least, a\ngeneral knowledge of what was called natural philosophy, I began to\ncompare, or, as I have before said, to confront, the internal evidence\nthose things afford with the christian system of faith.\n\nThough it is not a direct article of the christian system that this\nworld that we inhabit is the whole of the habitable creation, yet it is\nso worked up therewith, from what is called the Mosaic account of the\ncreation, the story of Eve and the apple, and the counterpart of that\nstory, the death of the Son of God, that to believe otherwise, that is,\nto believe that God created a plurality of worlds, at least as numerous\nas what we call stars, renders the christian system of faith at once\nlittle and ridiculous; and scatters it in the mind like feathers in the\nair. The two beliefs can not be held together in the same mind; and he\nwho thinks that he believes both, has thought but little of either.\n\nThough the belief of a plurality of worlds was familiar to the\nancients, it is only within the last three centuries that the extent\nand dimensions of this globe that we inhabit have been ascertained.\nSeveral vessels, following the tract of the ocean, have sailed entirely\nround the world, as a man may march in a circle, and come round by the\ncontrary side of the circle to the spot he set out from. The circular\ndimensions of our world, in the widest part, as a man would measure the\nwidest round of an apple, or a ball, is only twenty-five thousand and\ntwenty English miles, reckoning sixty-nine miles and an half to an\nequatorial degree, and may be sailed round in the space of about three\nyears. [NOTE by Paine: Allowing a ship to sail, on an average, three\nmiles in an hour, she would sail entirely round the world in less than\none year, if she could sail in a direct circle, but she is obliged to\nfollow the course of the ocean.\u2014Author.]\n\nA world of this extent may, at first thought, appear to us to be great;\nbut if we compare it with the immensity of space in which it is\nsuspended, like a bubble or a balloon in the air, it is infinitely less\nin proportion than the smallest grain of sand is to the size of the\nworld, or the finest particle of dew to the whole ocean, and is\ntherefore but small; and, as will be hereafter shown, is only one of a\nsystem of worlds, of which the universal creation is composed.\n\nIt is not difficult to gain some faint idea of the immensity of space\nin which this and all the other worlds are suspended, if we follow a\nprogression of ideas. When we think of the size or dimensions of, a\nroom, our ideas limit themselves to the walls, and there they stop. But\nwhen our eye, or our imagination darts into space, that is, when it\nlooks upward into what we call the open air, we cannot conceive any\nwalls or boundaries it can have; and if for the sake of resting our\nideas we suppose a boundary, the question immediately renews itself,\nand asks, what is beyond that boundary? and in the same manner, what\nbeyond the next boundary? and so on till the fatigued imagination\nreturns and says, there is no end. Certainly, then, the Creator was not\npent for room when he made this world no larger than it is; and we have\nto seek the reason in something else.\n\nIf we take a survey of our own world, or rather of this, of which the\nCreator has given us the use as our portion in the immense system of\ncreation, we find every part of it, the earth, the waters, and the air\nthat surround it, filled, and as it were crowded with life, down from\nthe largest animals that we know of to the smallest insects the naked\neye can behold, and from thence to others still smaller, and totally\ninvisible without the assistance of the microscope. Every tree, every\nplant, every leaf, serves not only as an habitation, but as a world to\nsome numerous race, till animal existence becomes so exceedingly\nrefined, that the effluvia of a blade of grass would be food for\nthousands.\n\nSince then no part of our earth is left unoccupied, why is it to be\nsupposed that the immensity of space is a naked void, lying in eternal\nwaste? There is room for millions of worlds as large or larger than\nours, and each of them millions of miles apart from each other.\n\nHaving now arrived at this point, if we carry our ideas only one\nthought further, we shall see, perhaps, the true reason, at least a\nvery good reason for our happiness, why the Creator, instead of making\none immense world, extending over an immense quantity of space, has\npreferred dividing that quantity of matter into several distinct and\nseparate worlds, which we call planets, of which our earth is one. But\nbefore I explain my ideas upon this subject, it is necessary (not for\nthe sake of those that already know, but for those who do not) to show\nwhat the system of the universe is.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\nSYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE.\n\n\nThat part of the universe that is called the solar system (meaning the\nsystem of worlds to which our earth belongs, and of which Sol, or in\nEnglish language, the Sun, is the center) consists, besides the Sun, of\nsix distinct orbs, or planets, or worlds, besides the secondary bodies,\ncalled the satellites, or moons, of which our earth has one that\nattends her in her annual revolution round the Sun, in like manner as\nthe other satellites or moons, attend the planets or worlds to which\nthey severally belong, as may be seen by the assistance of the\ntelescope.\n\nThe Sun is the center round which those six worlds or planets revolve\nat different distances therefrom, and in circles concentric to each\nother. Each world keeps constantly in nearly the same tract round the\nSun, and continues at the same time turning round itself, in nearly an\nupright position, as a top turns round itself when it is spinning on\nthe ground, and leans a little sideways.\n\nIt is this leaning of the earth (23 1/2 degrees) that occasions summer\nand winter, and the different length of days and nights. If the earth\nturned round itself in a position perpendicular to the plane or level\nof the circle it moves in round the Sun, as a top turns round when it\nstands erect on the ground, the days and nights would be always of the\nsame length, twelve hours day and twelve hours night, and the season\nwould be uniformly the same throughout the year.\n\nEvery time that a planet (our earth for example) turns round itself, it\nmakes what we call day and night; and every time it goes entirely round\nthe Sun, it makes what we call a year, consequently our world turns\nthree hundred and sixty-five times round itself, in going once round\nthe Sun.\n\nThe names that the ancients gave to those six worlds, and which are\nstill called by the same names, are Mercury, Venus, this world that we\ncall ours, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. They appear larger to the eye\nthan the stars, being many million miles nearer to our earth than any\nof the stars are. The planet Venus is that which is called the evening\nstar, and sometimes the morning star, as she happens to set after, or\nrise before the Sun, which in either case is never more than three\nhours.\n\nThe Sun as before said being the center, the planet or world nearest\nthe Sun is Mercury; his distance from the Sun is thirty-four million\nmiles, and he moves round in a circle always at that distance from the\nSun, as a top may be supposed to spin round in the tract in which a\nhorse goes in a mill. The second world is Venus; she is fifty-seven\nmillion miles distant from the Sun, and consequently moves round in a\ncircle much greater than that of Mercury. The third world is this that\nwe inhabit, and which is eighty-eight million miles distant from the\nSun, and consequently moves round in a circle greater than that of\nVenus. The fourth world is Mars; he is distant from the sun one hundred\nand thirty-four million miles, and consequently moves round in a circle\ngreater than that of our earth. The fifth is Jupiter; he is distant\nfrom the Sun five hundred and fifty-seven million miles, and\nconsequently moves round in a circle greater than that of Mars. The\nsixth world is Saturn; he is distant from the Sun seven hundred and\nsixty-three million miles, and consequently moves round in a circle\nthat surrounds the circles or orbits of all the other worlds or\nplanets.\n\nThe space, therefore, in the air, or in the immensity of space, that\nour solar system takes up for the several worlds to perform their\nrevolutions in round the Sun, is of the extent in a strait line of the\nwhole diameter of the orbit or circle in which Saturn moves round the\nSun, which being double his distance from the Sun, is fifteen hundred\nand twenty-six million miles; and its circular extent is nearly five\nthousand million; and its globical content is almost three thousand\nfive hundred million times three thousand five hundred million square\nmiles. [NOTE by Paine: If it should be asked, how can man know these\nthings? I have one plain answer to give, which is, that man knows how\nto calculate an eclipse, and also how to calculate to a minute of time\nwhen the planet Venus, in making her revolutions round the Sun, will\ncome in a strait line between our earth and the Sun, and will appear to\nus about the size of a large pea passing across the face of the Sun.\nThis happens but twice in about a hundred years, at the distance of\nabout eight years from each other, and has happened twice in our time,\nboth of which were foreknown by calculation. It can also be known when\nthey will happen again for a thousand years to come, or to any other\nportion of time. As therefore, man could not be able to do these things\nif he did not understand the solar system, and the manner in which the\nrevolutions of the several planets or worlds are performed, the fact of\ncalculating an eclipse, or a transit of Venus, is a proof in point that\nthe knowledge exists; and as to a few thousand, or even a few million\nmiles, more or less, it makes scarcely any sensible difference in such\nimmense distances.\u2014Author.]\n\nBut this, immense as it is, is only one system of worlds. Beyond this,\nat a vast distance into space, far beyond all power of calculation, are\nthe stars called the fixed stars. They are called fixed, because they\nhave no revolutionary motion, as the six worlds or planets have that I\nhave been describing. Those fixed stars continue always at the same\ndistance from each other, and always in the same place, as the Sun does\nin the center of our system. The probability, therefore, is that each\nof those fixed stars is also a Sun, round which another system of\nworlds or planets, though too remote for us to discover, performs its\nrevolutions, as our system of worlds does round our central Sun. By\nthis easy progression of ideas, the immensity of space will appear to\nus to be filled with systems of worlds; and that no part of space lies\nat waste, any more than any part of our globe of earth and water is\nleft unoccupied.\n\nHaving thus endeavoured to convey, in a familiar and easy manner, some\nidea of the structure of the universe, I return to explain what I\nbefore alluded to, namely, the great benefits arising to man in\nconsequence of the Creator having made a Plurality of worlds, such as\nour system is, consisting of a central Sun and six worlds, besides\nsatellites, in preference to that of creating one world only of a vast\nextent.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\nADVANTAGES OF THE EXISTENCE OF MANY WORLDS IN EACH SOLAR SYSTEM\n\n\nIt is an idea I have never lost sight of, that all our knowledge of\nscience is derived from the revolutions (exhibited to our eye and from\nthence to our understanding) which those several planets or worlds of\nwhich our system is composed make in their circuit round the Sun.\n\nHad then the quantity of matter which these six worlds contain been\nblended into one solitary globe, the consequence to us would have been,\nthat either no revolutionary motion would have existed, or not a\nsufficiency of it to give us the ideas and the knowledge of science we\nnow have; and it is from the sciences that all the mechanical arts that\ncontribute so much to our earthly felicity and comfort are derived.\n\nAs therefore the Creator made nothing in vain, so also must it be\nbelieved that he organized the structure of the universe in the most\nadvantageous manner for the benefit of man; and as we see, and from\nexperience feel, the benefits we derive from the structure of the\nuniverse, formed as it is, which benefits we should not have had the\nopportunity of enjoying if the structure, so far as relates to our\nsystem, had been a solitary globe, we can discover at least one reason\nwhy a plurality of worlds has been made, and that reason calls forth\nthe devotional gratitude of man, as well as his admiration.\n\nBut it is not to us, the inhabitants of this globe, only, that the\nbenefits arising from a plurality of worlds are limited. The\ninhabitants of each of the worlds of which our system is composed,\nenjoy the same opportunities of knowledge as we do. They behold the\nrevolutionary motions of our earth, as we behold theirs. All the\nplanets revolve in sight of each other; and, therefore, the same\nuniversal school of science presents itself to all.\n\nNeither does the knowledge stop here. The system of worlds next to us\nexhibits, in its revolutions, the same principles and school of\nscience, to the inhabitants of their system, as our system does to us,\nand in like manner throughout the immensity of space.\n\nOur ideas, not only of the almightiness of the Creator, but of his\nwisdom and his beneficence, become enlarged in proportion as we\ncontemplate the extent and the structure of the universe. The solitary\nidea of a solitary world, rolling or at rest in the immense ocean of\nspace, gives place to the cheerful idea of a society of worlds, so\nhappily contrived as to administer, even by their motion, instruction\nto man. We see our own earth filled with abundance; but we forget to\nconsider how much of that abundance is owing to the scientific\nknowledge the vast machinery of the universe has unfolded.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\nAPPLICATION OF THE PRECEDING TO THE SYSTEM OF THE CHRISTIANS\n\n\nBut, in the midst of those reflections, what are we to think of the\nchristian system of faith that forms itself upon the idea of only one\nworld, and that of no greater extent, as is before shown, than\ntwenty-five thousand miles. An extent which a man, walking at the rate\nof three miles an hour for twelve hours in the day, could he keep on in\na circular direction, would walk entirely round in less than two years.\nAlas! what is this to the mighty ocean of space, and the almighty power\nof the Creator!\n\nFrom whence then could arise the solitary and strange conceit that the\nAlmighty, who had millions of worlds equally dependent on his\nprotection, should quit the care of all the rest, and come to die in\nour world, because, they say, one man and one woman had eaten an apple!\nAnd, on the other hand, are we to suppose that every world in the\nboundless creation had an Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a redeemer? In\nthis case, the person who is irreverently called the Son of God, and\nsometimes God himself, would have nothing else to do than to travel\nfrom world to world, in an endless succession of death, with scarcely a\nmomentary interval of life.\n\nIt has been by rejecting the evidence, that the word, or works of God\nin the creation, affords to our senses, and the action of our reason\nupon that evidence, that so many wild and whimsical systems of faith,\nand of religion, have been fabricated and set up. There may be many\nsystems of religion that so far from being morally bad are in many\nrespects morally good: but there can be but ONE that is true; and that\none necessarily must, as it ever will, be in all things consistent with\nthe ever existing word of God that we behold in his works. But such is\nthe strange construction of the christian system of faith, that every\nevidence the heavens affords to man, either directly contradicts it or\nrenders it absurd.\n\nIt is possible to believe, and I always feel pleasure in encouraging\nmyself to believe it, that there have been men in the world who\npersuaded themselves that what is called a pious fraud, might, at least\nunder particular circumstances, be productive of some good. But the\nfraud being once established, could not afterwards be explained; for it\nis with a pious fraud as with a bad action, it begets a calamitous\nnecessity of going on.\n\nThe persons who first preached the christian system of faith, and in\nsome measure combined with it the morality preached by Jesus Christ,\nmight persuade themselves that it was better than the heathen mythology\nthat then prevailed. From the first preachers the fraud went on to the\nsecond, and to the third, till the idea of its being a pious fraud\nbecame lost in the belief of its being true; and that belief became\nagain encouraged by the interest of those who made a livelihood by\npreaching it.\n\nBut though such a belief might, by such means, be rendered almost\ngeneral among the laity, it is next to impossible to account for the\ncontinual persecution carried on by the church, for several hundred\nyears, against the sciences, and against the professors of science, if\nthe church had not some record or tradition that it was originally no\nother than a pious fraud, or did not foresee that it could not be\nmaintained against the evidence that the structure of the universe\nafforded.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\nOF THE MEANS EMPLOYED IN ALL TIME, AND ALMOST UNIVERSALLY, TO DECEIVE\nTHE PEOPLES\n\n\nHaving thus shown the irreconcileable inconsistencies between the real\nword of God existing in the universe, and that which is called the word\nof God, as shown to us in a printed book that any man might make, I\nproceed to speak of the three principal means that have been employed\nin all ages, and perhaps in all countries, to impose upon mankind.\n\nThose three means are Mystery, Miracle, and Prophecy, The first two are\nincompatible with true religion, and the third ought always to be\nsuspected.\n\nWith respect to Mystery, everything we behold is, in one sense, a\nmystery to us. Our own existence is a mystery: the whole vegetable\nworld is a mystery. We cannot account how it is that an acorn, when put\ninto the ground, is made to develop itself and become an oak. We know\nnot how it is that the seed we sow unfolds and multiplies itself, and\nreturns to us such an abundant interest for so small a capital.\n\nThe fact however, as distinct from the operating cause, is not a\nmystery, because we see it; and we know also the means we are to use,\nwhich is no other than putting the seed in the ground. We know,\ntherefore, as much as is necessary for us to know; and that part of the\noperation that we do not know, and which if we did, we could not\nperform, the Creator takes upon himself and performs it for us. We are,\ntherefore, better off than if we had been let into the secret, and left\nto do it for ourselves.\n\nBut though every created thing is, in this sense, a mystery, the word\nmystery cannot be applied to moral truth, any more than obscurity can\nbe applied to light. The God in whom we believe is a God of moral\ntruth, and not a God of mystery or obscurity. Mystery is the antagonist\nof truth. It is a fog of human invention that obscures truth, and\nrepresents it in distortion. Truth never envelops itself in mystery;\nand the mystery in which it is at any time enveloped, is the work of\nits antagonist, and never of itself.\n\nReligion, therefore, being the belief of a God, and the practice of\nmoral truth, cannot have connection with mystery. The belief of a God,\nso far from having any thing of mystery in it, is of all beliefs the\nmost easy, because it arises to us, as is before observed, out of\nnecessity. And the practice of moral truth, or, in other words, a\npractical imitation of the moral goodness of God, is no other than our\nacting towards each other as he acts benignly towards all. We cannot\nserve God in the manner we serve those who cannot do without such\nservice; and, therefore, the only idea we can have of serving God, is\nthat of contributing to the happiness of the living creation that God\nhas made. This cannot be done by retiring ourselves from the society of\nthe world, and spending a recluse life in selfish devotion.\n\nThe very nature and design of religion, if I may so express it, prove\neven to demonstration that it must be free from every thing of mystery,\nand unincumbered with every thing that is mysterious. Religion,\nconsidered as a duty, is incumbent upon every living soul alike, and,\ntherefore, must be on a level to the understanding and comprehension of\nall. Man does not learn religion as he learns the secrets and mysteries\nof a trade. He learns the theory of religion by reflection. It arises\nout of the action of his own mind upon the things which he sees, or\nupon what he may happen to hear or to read, and the practice joins\nitself thereto.\n\nWhen men, whether from policy or pious fraud, set up systems of\nreligion incompatible with the word or works of God in the creation,\nand not only above but repugnant to human comprehension, they were\nunder the necessity of inventing or adopting a word that should serve\nas a bar to all questions, inquiries and speculations. The word mystery\nanswered this purpose, and thus it has happened that religion, which is\nin itself without mystery, has been corrupted into a fog of mysteries.\n\nAs mystery answered all general purposes, miracle followed as an\noccasional auxiliary. The former served to bewilder the mind, the\nlatter to puzzle the senses. The one was the lingo, the other the\nlegerdemain.\n\nBut before going further into this subject, it will be proper to\ninquire what is to be understood by a miracle.\n\nIn the same sense that every thing may be said to be a mystery, so also\nmay it be said that every thing is a miracle, and that no one thing is\na greater miracle than another. The elephant, though larger, is not a\ngreater miracle than a mite: nor a mountain a greater miracle than an\natom. To an almighty power it is no more difficult to make the one than\nthe other, and no more difficult to make a million of worlds than to\nmake one. Every thing, therefore, is a miracle, in one sense; whilst,\nin the other sense, there is no such thing as a miracle. It is a\nmiracle when compared to our power, and to our comprehension. It is not\na miracle compared to the power that performs it. But as nothing in\nthis description conveys the idea that is affixed to the word miracle,\nit is necessary to carry the inquiry further.\n\nMankind have conceived to themselves certain laws, by which what they\ncall nature is supposed to act; and that a miracle is something\ncontrary to the operation and effect of those laws. But unless we know\nthe whole extent of those laws, and of what are commonly called the\npowers of nature, we are not able to judge whether any thing that may\nappear to us wonderful or miraculous, be within, or be beyond, or be\ncontrary to, her natural power of acting.\n\nThe ascension of a man several miles high into the air, would have\neverything in it that constitutes the idea of a miracle, if it were not\nknown that a species of air can be generated several times lighter than\nthe common atmospheric air, and yet possess elasticity enough to\nprevent the balloon, in which that light air is inclosed, from being\ncompressed into as many times less bulk, by the common air that\nsurrounds it. In like manner, extracting flashes or sparks of fire from\nthe human body, as visibly as from a steel struck with a flint, and\ncausing iron or steel to move without any visible agent, would also\ngive the idea of a miracle, if we were not acquainted with electricity\nand magnetism; so also would many other experiments in natural\nphilosophy, to those who are not acquainted with the subject. The\nrestoring persons to life who are to appearance dead as is practised\nupon drowned persons, would also be a miracle, if it were not known\nthat animation is capable of being suspended without being extinct.\n\nBesides these, there are performances by slight of hand, and by persons\nacting in concert, that have a miraculous appearance, which, when\nknown, are thought nothing of. And, besides these, there are mechanical\nand optical deceptions. There is now an exhibition in Paris of ghosts\nor spectres, which, though it is not imposed upon the spectators as a\nfact, has an astonishing appearance. As, therefore, we know not the\nextent to which either nature or art can go, there is no criterion to\ndetermine what a miracle is; and mankind, in giving credit to\nappearances, under the idea of their being miracles, are subject to be\ncontinually imposed upon.\n\nSince then appearances are so capable of deceiving, and things not real\nhave a strong resemblance to things that are, nothing can be more\ninconsistent than to suppose that the Almighty would make use of means,\nsuch as are called miracles, that would subject the person who\nperformed them to the suspicion of being an impostor, and the person\nwho related them to be suspected of lying, and the doctrine intended to\nbe supported thereby to be suspected as a fabulous invention.\n\nOf all the modes of evidence that ever were invented to obtain belief\nto any system or opinion to which the name of religion has been given,\nthat of miracle, however successful the imposition may have been, is\nthe most inconsistent. For, in the first place, whenever recourse is\nhad to show, for the purpose of procuring that belief (for a miracle,\nunder any idea of the word, is a show) it implies a lameness or\nweakness in the doctrine that is preached. And, in the second place, it\nis degrading the Almighty into the character of a show-man, playing\ntricks to amuse and make the people stare and wonder. It is also the\nmost equivocal sort of evidence that can be set up; for the belief is\nnot to depend upon the thing called a miracle, but upon the credit of\nthe reporter, who says that he saw it; and, therefore, the thing, were\nit true, would have no better chance of being believed than if it were\na lie.\n\nSuppose I were to say, that when I sat down to write this book, a hand\npresented itself in the air, took up the pen and wrote every word that\nis herein written; would any body believe me? Certainly they would not.\nWould they believe me a whit the more if the thing had been a fact?\nCertainly they would not. Since then a real miracle, were it to happen,\nwould be subject to the same fate as the falsehood, the inconsistency\nbecomes the greater of supposing the Almighty would make use of means\nthat would not answer the purpose for which they were intended, even if\nthey were real.\n\nIf we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the\ncourse of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to\naccomplish it, and we see an account given of such a miracle by the\nperson who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily\ndecided, which is,\u2014Is it more probable that nature should go out of her\ncourse, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our\ntime, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe\nthat millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is,\ntherefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle\ntells a lie.\n\nThe story of the whale swallowing Jonah, though a whale is large enough\nto do it, borders greatly on the marvellous; but it would have\napproached nearer to the idea of a miracle, if Jonah had swallowed the\nwhale. In this, which may serve for all cases of miracles, the matter\nwould decide itself as before stated, namely, Is it more probable that\na man should have, swallowed a whale, or told a lie?\n\nBut suppose that Jonah had really swallowed the whale, and gone with it\nin his belly to Nineveh, and to convince the people that it was true\nhave cast it up in their sight, of the full length and size of a whale,\nwould they not have believed him to have been the devil instead of a\nprophet? or if the whale had carried Jonah to Nineveh, and cast him up\nin the same public manner, would they not have believed the whale to\nhave been the devil, and Jonah one of his imps?\n\nThe most extraordinary of all the things called miracles, related in\nthe New Testament, is that of the devil flying away with Jesus Christ,\nand carrying him to the top of a high mountain; and to the top of the\nhighest pinnacle of the temple, and showing him and promising to him\nall the kingdoms of the world. How happened it that he did not discover\nAmerica? or is it only with kingdoms that his sooty highness has any\ninterest.\n\nI have too much respect for the moral character of Christ to believe\nthat he told this whale of a miracle himself: neither is it easy to\naccount for what purpose it could have been fabricated, unless it were\nto impose upon the connoisseurs of miracles, as is sometimes practised\nupon the connoisseurs of Queen Anne\u2019s farthings, and collectors of\nrelics and antiquities; or to render the belief of miracles ridiculous,\nby outdoing miracle, as Don Quixote outdid chivalry; or to embarrass\nthe belief of miracles, by making it doubtful by what power, whether of\nGod or of the devil, any thing called a miracle was performed. It\nrequires, however, a great deal of faith in the devil to believe this\nmiracle.\n\nIn every point of view in which those things called miracles can be\nplaced and considered, the reality of them is improbable, and their\nexistence unnecessary. They would not, as before observed, answer any\nuseful purpose, even if they were true; for it is more difficult to\nobtain belief to a miracle, than to a principle evidently moral,\nwithout any miracle. Moral principle speaks universally for itself.\nMiracle could be but a thing of the moment, and seen but by a few;\nafter this it requires a transfer of faith from God to man to believe a\nmiracle upon man\u2019s report. Instead, therefore, of admitting the\nrecitals of miracles as evidence of any system of religion being true,\nthey ought to be considered as symptoms of its being fabulous. It is\nnecessary to the full and upright character of truth that it rejects\nthe crutch; and it is consistent with the character of fable to seek\nthe aid that truth rejects. Thus much for Mystery and Miracle.\n\nAs Mystery and Miracle took charge of the past and the present,\nProphecy took charge of the future, and rounded the tenses of faith. It\nwas not sufficient to know what had been done, but what would be done.\nThe supposed prophet was the supposed historian of times to come; and\nif he happened, in shooting with a long bow of a thousand years, to\nstrike within a thousand miles of a mark, the ingenuity of posterity\ncould make it point-blank; and if he happened to be directly wrong, it\nwas only to suppose, as in the case of Jonah and Nineveh, that God had\nrepented himself and changed his mind. What a fool do fabulous systems\nmake of man!\n\nIt has been shewn, in a former part of this work, that the original\nmeaning of the words prophet and prophesying has been changed, and that\na prophet, in the sense of the word as now used, is a creature of\nmodern invention; and it is owing to this change in the meaning of the\nwords, that the flights and metaphors of the Jewish poets, and phrases\nand expressions now rendered obscure by our not being acquainted with\nthe local circumstances to which they applied at the time they were\nused, have been erected into prophecies, and made to bend to\nexplanations at the will and whimsical conceits of sectaries,\nexpounders, and commentators. Every thing unintelligible was\nprophetical, and every thing insignificant was typical. A blunder would\nhave served for a prophecy; and a dish-clout for a type.\n\nIf by a prophet we are to suppose a man to whom the Almighty\ncommunicated some event that would take place in future, either there\nwere such men, or there were not. If there were, it is consistent to\nbelieve that the event so communicated would be told in terms that\ncould be understood, and not related in such a loose and obscure manner\nas to be out of the comprehension of those that heard it, and so\nequivocal as to fit almost any circumstance that might happen\nafterwards. It is conceiving very irreverently of the Almighty, to\nsuppose he would deal in this jesting manner with mankind; yet all the\nthings called prophecies in the book called the Bible come under this\ndescription.\n\nBut it is with Prophecy as it is with Miracle. It could not answer the\npurpose even if it were real. Those to whom a prophecy should be told\ncould not tell whether the man prophesied or lied, or whether it had\nbeen revealed to him, or whether he conceited it; and if the thing that\nhe prophesied, or pretended to prophesy, should happen, or some thing\nlike it, among the multitude of things that are daily happening, nobody\ncould again know whether he foreknew it, or guessed at it, or whether\nit was accidental. A prophet, therefore, is a character useless and\nunnecessary; and the safe side of the case is to guard against being\nimposed upon, by not giving credit to such relations.\n\nUpon the whole, Mystery, Miracle, and Prophecy, are appendages that\nbelong to fabulous and not to true religion. They are the means by\nwhich so many Lo heres! and Lo theres! have been spread about the\nworld, and religion been made into a trade. The success of one impostor\ngave encouragement to another, and the quieting salvo of doing some\ngood by keeping up a pious fraud protected them from remorse.\n\n\n\n\nRECAPITULATION\n\n\nHaving now extended the subject to a greater length than I first\nintended, I shall bring it to a close by abstracting a summary from the\nwhole.\n\nFirst, That the idea or belief of a word of God existing in print, or\nin writing, or in speech, is inconsistent in itself for the reasons\nalready assigned. These reasons, among many others, are the want of an\nuniversal language; the mutability of language; the errors to which\ntranslations are subject, the possibility of totally suppressing such a\nword; the probability of altering it, or of fabricating the whole, and\nimposing it upon the world.\n\nSecondly, That the Creation we behold is the real and ever existing\nword of God, in which we cannot be deceived. It proclaimeth his power,\nit demonstrates his wisdom, it manifests his goodness and beneficence.\n\nThirdly, That the moral duty of man consists in imitating the moral\ngoodness and beneficence of God manifested in the creation towards all\nhis creatures. That seeing as we daily do the goodness of God to all\nmen, it is an example calling upon all men to practise the same towards\neach other; and, consequently, that every thing of persecution and\nrevenge between man and man, and every thing of cruelty to animals, is\na violation of moral duty.\n\nI trouble not myself about the manner of future existence. I content\nmyself with believing, even to positive conviction, that the power that\ngave me existence is able to continue it, in any form and manner he\npleases, either with or without this body; and it appears more probable\nto me that I shall continue to exist hereafter than that I should have\nhad existence, as I now have, before that existence began.\n\nIt is certain that, in one point, all nations of the earth and all\nreligions agree. All believe in a God. The things in which they\ndisgrace are the redundancies annexed to that belief; and therefore, if\never an universal religion should prevail, it will not be believing any\nthing new, but in getting rid of redundancies, and believing as man\nbelieved at first. [\u201cIn the childhood of the world,\u201d according to the\nfirst (French) version; and the strict translation of the final\nsentence is: \u201cDeism was the religion of Adam, supposing him not an\nimaginary being; but none the less must it be left to all men to\nfollow, as is their right, the religion and worship they\nprefer.\u201d\u2014Editor.] Adam, if ever there was such a man, was created a\nDeist; but in the mean time, let every man follow, as he has a right to\ndo, the religion and worship he prefers.\n\n\n\n\nTHE AGE OF REASON - PART II\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nI have mentioned in the former part of The Age of Reason that it had\nlong been my intention to publish my thoughts upon Religion; but that I\nhad originally reserved it to a later period in life, intending it to\nbe the last work I should undertake. The circumstances, however, which\nexisted in France in the latter end of the year 1793, determined me to\ndelay it no longer. The just and humane principles of the Revolution\nwhich Philosophy had first diffused, had been departed from. The Idea,\nalways dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty,\u2014that\npriests could forgive sins,\u2014though it seemed to exist no longer, had\nblunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the\ncommission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution\nhad transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled\nRevolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine\nof the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others\ndaily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also\nintimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself.\n\nUnder these disadvantages, I began the former part of the Age of\nReason; I had, besides, neither Bible nor Testament [It must be borne\nin mind that throughout this work Paine generally means by \u201cBible\u201d only\nthe Old Testament, and speaks of the New as the \u201cTestament.\u201d\u2014Editor.]\nto refer to, though I was writing against both; nor could I procure\nany; notwithstanding which I have produced a work that no Bible\nBeliever, though writing at his ease and with a Library of Church Books\nabout him, can refute. Towards the latter end of December of that year,\na motion was made and carried, to exclude foreigners from the\nConvention. There were but two, Anacharsis Cloots and myself; and I saw\nI was particularly pointed at by Bourdon de l\u2019Oise, in his speech on\nthat motion.\n\nConceiving, after this, that I had but a few days of liberty, I sat\ndown and brought the work to a close as speedily as possible; and I had\nnot finished it more than six hours, in the state it has since\nappeared, [This is an allusion to the essay which Paine wrote at an\nearlier part of 1793. See Introduction.\u2014Editor.] before a guard came\nthere, about three in the morning, with an order signed by the two\nCommittees of Public Safety and Surety General, for putting me in\narrestation as a foreigner, and conveying me to the prison of the\nLuxembourg. I contrived, in my way there, to call on Joel Barlow, and I\nput the Manuscript of the work into his hands, as more safe than in my\npossession in prison; and not knowing what might be the fate in France\neither of the writer or the work, I addressed it to the protection of\nthe citizens of the United States.\n\nIt is justice that I say, that the guard who executed this order, and\nthe interpreter to the Committee of General Surety, who accompanied\nthem to examine my papers, treated me not only with civility, but with\nrespect. The keeper of the \u2018Luxembourg, Benoit, a man of good heart,\nshewed to me every friendship in his power, as did also all his family,\nwhile he continued in that station. He was removed from it, put into\narrestation, and carried before the tribunal upon a malignant\naccusation, but acquitted.\n\nAfter I had been in Luxembourg about three weeks, the Americans then in\nParis went in a body to the Convention to reclaim me as their\ncountryman and friend; but were answered by the President, Vadier, who\nwas also President of the Committee of Surety General, and had signed\nthe order for my arrestation, that I was born in England. [These\nexcited Americans do not seem to have understood or reported the most\nimportant item in Vadeer\u2019s reply, namely that their application was\n\u201cunofficial,\u201d i.e. not made through or sanctioned by Gouverneur Morris,\nAmerican Minister. For the detailed history of all this see vol.\niii.\u2014Editor.] I heard no more, after this, from any person out of the\nwalls of the prison, till the fall of Robespierre, on the 9th of\nThermidor\u2014July 27, 1794.\n\nAbout two months before this event, I was seized with a fever that in\nits progress had every symptom of becoming mortal, and from the effects\nof which I am not recovered. It was then that I remembered with renewed\nsatisfaction, and congratulated myself most sincerely, on having\nwritten the former part of The Age of Reason. I had then but little\nexpectation of surviving, and those about me had less. I know therefore\nby experience the conscientious trial of my own principles.\n\nI was then with three chamber comrades: Joseph Vanheule of Bruges,\nCharles Bastfni, and Michael Robyns of Louvain. The unceasing and\nanxious attention of these three friends to me, by night and day, I\nremember with gratitude and mention with pleasure. It happened that a\nphysician (Dr. Graham) and a surgeon, (Mr. Bond,) part of the suite of\nGeneral O\u2019Hara, [The officer who at Yorktown, Virginia, carried out the\nsword of Cornwallis for surrender, and satirically offered it to\nRochambeau instead of Washington. Paine loaned him 300 pounds when he\n(O\u2019Hara) left the prison, the money he had concealed in the lock of his\ncell-door.\u2014Editor.] were then in the Luxembourg: I ask not myself\nwhether it be convenient to them, as men under the English Government,\nthat I express to them my thanks; but I should reproach myself if I did\nnot; and also to the physician of the Luxembourg, Dr. Markoski.\n\nI have some reason to believe, because I cannot discover any other,\nthat this illness preserved me in existence. Among the papers of\nRobespierre that were examined and reported upon to the Convention by a\nCommittee of Deputies, is a note in the hand writing of Robespierre, in\nthe following words:\n\n\u201cDemander que Thomas Paine soit decrete d\u2019accusation, pour l\u2019interet de\nl\u2019Amerique autant que de la France.\u201d\n\n[Demand that Thomas Paine be decreed of accusation, for the interest of\nAmerica, as well as of France.] From what cause it was that the\nintention was not put in execution, I know not, and cannot inform\nmyself; and therefore I ascribe it to impossibility, on account of that\nillness.\n\nThe Convention, to repair as much as lay in their power the injustice I\nhad sustained, invited me publickly and unanimously to return into the\nConvention, and which I accepted, to shew I could bear an injury\nwithout permitting it to injure my principles or my disposition. It is\nnot because right principles have been violated, that they are to be\nabandoned.\n\nI have seen, since I have been at liberty, several publications\nwritten, some in America, and some in England, as answers to the former\npart of \u201cThe Age of Reason.\u201d If the authors of these can amuse\nthemselves by so doing, I shall not interrupt them, They may write\nagainst the work, and against me, as much as they please; they do me\nmore service than they intend, and I can have no objection that they\nwrite on. They will find, however, by this Second Part, without its\nbeing written as an answer to them, that they must return to their\nwork, and spin their cobweb over again. The first is brushed away by\naccident.\n\nThey will now find that I have furnished myself with a Bible and\nTestament; and I can say also that I have found them to be much worse\nbooks than I had conceived. If I have erred in any thing, in the former\npart of the Age of Reason, it has been by speaking better of some parts\nthan they deserved.\n\nI observe, that all my opponents resort, more or less, to what they\ncall Scripture Evidence and Bible authority, to help them out. They are\nso little masters of the subject, as to confound a dispute about\nauthenticity with a dispute about doctrines; I will, however, put them\nright, that if they should be disposed to write any more, they may know\nhow to begin.\n\nTHOMAS PAINE. October, 1795.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT\n\n\nIt has often been said that any thing may be proved from the Bible; but\nbefore any thing can be admitted as proved by Bible, the Bible itself\nmust be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth\nof it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted\nas proof of any thing.\n\nIt has been the practice of all Christian commentators on the Bible,\nand of all Christian priests and preachers, to impose the Bible on the\nworld as a mass of truth, and as the word of God; they have disputed\nand wrangled, and have anathematized each other about the supposeable\nmeaning of particular parts and passages therein; one has said and\ninsisted that such a passage meant such a thing, another that it meant\ndirectly the contrary, and a third, that it meant neither one nor the\nother, but something different from both; and this they have called\nunderstanding the Bible.\n\nIt has happened, that all the answers that I have seen to the former\npart of \u2018The Age of Reason\u2019 have been written by priests: and these\npious men, like their predecessors, contend and wrangle, and understand\nthe Bible; each understands it differently, but each understands it\nbest; and they have agreed in nothing but in telling their readers that\nThomas Paine understands it not.\n\nNow instead of wasting their time, and heating themselves in fractious\ndisputations about doctrinal points drawn from the Bible, these men\nought to know, and if they do not it is civility to inform them, that\nthe first thing to be understood is, whether there is sufficient\nauthority for believing the Bible to be the word of God, or whether\nthere is not?\n\nThere are matters in that book, said to be done by the express command\nof God, that are as shocking to humanity, and to every idea we have of\nmoral justice, as any thing done by Robespierre, by Carrier, by Joseph\nle Bon, in France, by the English government in the East Indies, or by\nany other assassin in modern times. When we read in the books ascribed\nto Moses, Joshua, etc., that they (the Israelites) came by stealth upon\nwhole nations of people, who, as the history itself shews, had given\nthem no offence; that they put all those nations to the sword; that\nthey spared neither age nor infancy; that they utterly destroyed men,\nwomen and children; that they left not a soul to breathe; expressions\nthat are repeated over and over again in those books, and that too with\nexulting ferocity; are we sure these things are facts? are we sure that\nthe Creator of man commissioned those things to be done? Are we sure\nthat the books that tell us so were written by his authority?\n\nIt is not the antiquity of a tale that is an evidence of its truth; on\nthe contrary, it is a symptom of its being fabulous; for the more\nancient any history pretends to be, the more it has the resemblance of\na fable. The origin of every nation is buried in fabulous tradition,\nand that of the Jews is as much to be suspected as any other.\n\nTo charge the commission of things upon the Almighty, which in their\nown nature, and by every rule of moral justice, are crimes, as all\nassassination is, and more especially the assassination of infants, is\nmatter of serious concern. The Bible tells us, that those\nassassinations were done by the express command of God. To believe\ntherefore the Bible to be true, we must unbelieve all our belief in the\nmoral justice of God; for wherein could crying or smiling infants\noffend? And to read the Bible without horror, we must undo every thing\nthat is tender, sympathising, and benevolent in the heart of man.\nSpeaking for myself, if I had no other evidence that the Bible is\nfabulous, than the sacrifice I must make to believe it to be true, that\nalone would be sufficient to determine my choice.\n\nBut in addition to all the moral evidence against the Bible, I will, in\nthe progress of this work, produce such other evidence as even a priest\ncannot deny; and show, from that evidence, that the Bible is not\nentitled to credit, as being the word of God.\n\nBut, before I proceed to this examination, I will show wherein the\nBible differs from all other ancient writings with respect to the\nnature of the evidence necessary to establish its authenticity; and\nthis is the more proper to be done, because the advocates of the Bible,\nin their answers to the former part of \u2018The Age of Reason,\u2019 undertake\nto say, and they put some stress thereon, that the authenticity of the\nBible is as well established as that of any other ancient book: as if\nour belief of the one could become any rule for our belief of the\nother.\n\nI know, however, but of one ancient book that authoritatively\nchallenges universal consent and belief, and that is Euclid\u2019s Elements\nof Geometry; [Euclid, according to chronological history, lived three\nhundred years before Christ, and about one hundred before Archimedes;\nhe was of the city of Alexandria, in Egypt.\u2014Author.] and the reason is,\nbecause it is a book of self-evident demonstration, entirely\nindependent of its author, and of every thing relating to time, place,\nand circumstance. The matters contained in that book would have the\nsame authority they now have, had they been written by any other\nperson, or had the work been anonymous, or had the author never been\nknown; for the identical certainty of who was the author makes no part\nof our belief of the matters contained in the book. But it is quite\notherwise with respect to the books ascribed to Moses, to Joshua, to\nSamuel, etc.: those are books of testimony, and they testify of things\nnaturally incredible; and therefore the whole of our belief, as to the\nauthenticity of those books, rests, in the first place, upon the\ncertainty that they were written by Moses, Joshua, and Samuel;\nsecondly, upon the credit we give to their testimony. We may believe\nthe first, that is, may believe the certainty of the authorship, and\nyet not the testimony; in the same manner that we may believe that a\ncertain person gave evidence upon a case, and yet not believe the\nevidence that he gave. But if it should be found that the books\nascribed to Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, were not written by Moses,\nJoshua, and Samuel, every part of the authority and authenticity of\nthose books is gone at once; for there can be no such thing as forged\nor invented testimony; neither can there be anonymous testimony, more\nespecially as to things naturally incredible; such as that of talking\nwith God face to face, or that of the sun and moon standing still at\nthe command of a man.\n\nThe greatest part of the other ancient books are works of genius; of\nwhich kind are those ascribed to Homer, to Plato, to Aristotle, to\nDemosthenes, to Cicero, etc. Here again the author is not an essential\nin the credit we give to any of those works; for as works of genius\nthey would have the same merit they have now, were they anonymous.\nNobody believes the Trojan story, as related by Homer, to be true; for\nit is the poet only that is admired, and the merit of the poet will\nremain, though the story be fabulous. But if we disbelieve the matters\nrelated by the Bible authors (Moses for instance) as we disbelieve the\nthings related by Homer, there remains nothing of Moses in our\nestimation, but an imposter. As to the ancient historians, from\nHerodotus to Tacitus, we credit them as far as they relate things\nprobable and credible, and no further: for if we do, we must believe\nthe two miracles which Tacitus relates were performed by Vespasian,\nthat of curing a lame man, and a blind man, in just the same manner as\nthe same things are told of Jesus Christ by his historians. We must\nalso believe the miracles cited by Josephus, that of the sea of\nPamphilia opening to let Alexander and his army pass, as is related of\nthe Red Sea in Exodus. These miracles are quite as well authenticated\nas the Bible miracles, and yet we do not believe them; consequently the\ndegree of evidence necessary to establish our belief of things\nnaturally incredible, whether in the Bible or elsewhere, is far greater\nthan that which obtains our belief to natural and probable things; and\ntherefore the advocates for the Bible have no claim to our belief of\nthe Bible because that we believe things stated in other ancient\nwritings; since that we believe the things stated in those writings no\nfurther than they are probable and credible, or because they are\nself-evident, like Euclid; or admire them because they are elegant,\nlike Homer; or approve them because they are sedate, like Plato; or\njudicious, like Aristotle.\n\nHaving premised these things, I proceed to examine the authenticity of\nthe Bible; and I begin with what are called the five books of Moses,\nGenesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. My intention is\nto shew that those books are spurious, and that Moses is not the author\nof them; and still further, that they were not written in the time of\nMoses nor till several hundred years afterwards; that they are no other\nthan an attempted history of the life of Moses, and of the times in\nwhich he is said to have lived, and also of the times prior thereto,\nwritten by some very ignorant and stupid pretenders to authorship,\nseveral hundred years after the death of Moses; as men now write\nhistories of things that happened, or are supposed to have happened,\nseveral hundred or several thousand years ago.\n\nThe evidence that I shall produce in this case is from the books\nthemselves; and I will confine myself to this evidence only. Were I to\nrefer for proofs to any of the ancient authors, whom the advocates of\nthe Bible call prophane authors, they would controvert that authority,\nas I controvert theirs: I will therefore meet them on their own ground,\nand oppose them with their own weapon, the Bible.\n\nIn the first place, there is no affirmative evidence that Moses is the\nauthor of those books; and that he is the author, is altogether an\nunfounded opinion, got abroad nobody knows how. The style and manner in\nwhich those books are written give no room to believe, or even to\nsuppose, they were written by Moses; for it is altogether the style and\nmanner of another person speaking of Moses. In Exodus, Leviticus and\nNumbers, (for every thing in Genesis is prior to the times of Moses and\nnot the least allusion is made to him therein,) the whole, I say, of\nthese books is in the third person; it is always, the Lord said unto\nMoses, or Moses said unto the Lord; or Moses said unto the people, or\nthe people said unto Moses; and this is the style and manner that\nhistorians use in speaking of the person whose lives and actions they\nare writing. It may be said, that a man may speak of himself in the\nthird person, and, therefore, it may be supposed that Moses did; but\nsupposition proves nothing; and if the advocates for the belief that\nMoses wrote those books himself have nothing better to advance than\nsupposition, they may as well be silent.\n\nBut granting the grammatical right, that Moses might speak of himself\nin the third person, because any man might speak of himself in that\nmanner, it cannot be admitted as a fact in those books, that it is\nMoses who speaks, without rendering Moses truly ridiculous and\nabsurd:\u2014for example, Numbers xii. 3: \u201cNow the man Moses was very MEEK,\nabove all the men which were on the face of the earth.\u201d If Moses said\nthis of himself, instead of being the meekest of men, he was one of the\nmost vain and arrogant coxcombs; and the advocates for those books may\nnow take which side they please, for both sides are against them: if\nMoses was not the author, the books are without authority; and if he\nwas the author, the author is without credit, because to boast of\nmeekness is the reverse of meekness, and is a lie in sentiment.\n\nIn Deuteronomy, the style and manner of writing marks more evidently\nthan in the former books that Moses is not the writer. The manner here\nused is dramatical; the writer opens the subject by a short\nintroductory discourse, and then introduces Moses as in the act of\nspeaking, and when he has made Moses finish his harrangue, he (the\nwriter) resumes his own part, and speaks till he brings Moses forward\nagain, and at last closes the scene with an account of the death,\nfuneral, and character of Moses.\n\nThis interchange of speakers occurs four times in this book: from the\nfirst verse of the first chapter, to the end of the fifth verse, it is\nthe writer who speaks; he then introduces Moses as in the act of making\nhis harrangue, and this continues to the end of the 40th verse of the\nfourth chapter; here the writer drops Moses, and speaks historically of\nwhat was done in consequence of what Moses, when living, is supposed to\nhave said, and which the writer has dramatically rehearsed.\n\nThe writer opens the subject again in the first verse of the fifth\nchapter, though it is only by saying that Moses called the people of\nIsrael together; he then introduces Moses as before, and continues him\nas in the act of speaking, to the end of the 26th chapter. He does the\nsame thing at the beginning of the 27th chapter; and continues Moses as\nin the act of speaking, to the end of the 28th chapter. At the 29th\nchapter the writer speaks again through the whole of the first verse,\nand the first line of the second verse, where he introduces Moses for\nthe last time, and continues him as in the act of speaking, to the end\nof the 33d chapter.\n\nThe writer having now finished the rehearsal on the part of Moses,\ncomes forward, and speaks through the whole of the last chapter: he\nbegins by telling the reader, that Moses went up to the top of Pisgah,\nthat he saw from thence the land which (the writer says) had been\npromised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; that he, Moses, died there in\nthe land of Moab, that he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab,\nbut that no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day, that is unto\nthe time in which the writer lived who wrote the book of Deuteronomy.\nThe writer then tells us, that Moses was one hundred and ten years of\nage when he died\u2014that his eye was not dim, nor his natural force\nabated; and he concludes by saying, that there arose not a prophet\nsince in Israel like unto Moses, whom, says this anonymous writer, the\nLord knew face to face.\n\nHaving thus shewn, as far as grammatical evidence implies, that Moses\nwas not the writer of those books, I will, after making a few\nobservations on the inconsistencies of the writer of the book of\nDeuteronomy, proceed to shew, from the historical and chronological\nevidence contained in those books, that Moses was not, because he could\nnot be, the writer of them; and consequently, that there is no\nauthority for believing that the inhuman and horrid butcheries of men,\nwomen, and children, told of in those books, were done, as those books\nsay they were, at the command of God. It is a duty incumbent on every\ntrue deist, that he vindicates the moral justice of God against the\ncalumnies of the Bible.\n\nThe writer of the book of Deuteronomy, whoever he was, for it is an\nanonymous work, is obscure, and also contradictory with himself in the\naccount he has given of Moses.\n\nAfter telling that Moses went to the top of Pisgah (and it does not\nappear from any account that he ever came down again) he tells us, that\nMoses died there in the land of Moab, and that he buried him in a\nvalley in the land of Moab; but as there is no antecedent to the\npronoun he, there is no knowing who he was, that did bury him. If the\nwriter meant that he (God) buried him, how should he (the writer) know\nit? or why should we (the readers) believe him? since we know not who\nthe writer was that tells us so, for certainly Moses could not himself\ntell where he was buried.\n\nThe writer also tells us, that no man knoweth where the sepulchre of\nMoses is unto this day, meaning the time in which this writer lived;\nhow then should he know that Moses was buried in a valley in the land\nof Moab? for as the writer lived long after the time of Moses, as is\nevident from his using the expression of unto this day, meaning a great\nlength of time after the death of Moses, he certainly was not at his\nfuneral; and on the other hand, it is impossible that Moses himself\ncould say that no man knoweth where the sepulchre is unto this day. To\nmake Moses the speaker, would be an improvement on the play of a child\nthat hides himself and cries nobody can find me; nobody can find Moses.\n\nThis writer has no where told us how he came by the speeches which he\nhas put into the mouth of Moses to speak, and therefore we have a right\nto conclude that he either composed them himself, or wrote them from\noral tradition. One or other of these is the more probable, since he\nhas given, in the fifth chapter, a table of commandments, in which that\ncalled the fourth commandment is different from the fourth commandment\nin the twentieth chapter of Exodus. In that of Exodus, the reason given\nfor keeping the seventh day is, because (says the commandment) God made\nthe heavens and the earth in six days, and rested on the seventh; but\nin that of Deuteronomy, the reason given is, that it was the day on\nwhich the children of Israel came out of Egypt, and therefore, says\nthis commandment, the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the\nsabbath-day This makes no mention of the creation, nor that of the\ncoming out of Egypt. There are also many things given as laws of Moses\nin this book, that are not to be found in any of the other books; among\nwhich is that inhuman and brutal law, xxi. 18, 19, 20, 21, which\nauthorizes parents, the father and the mother, to bring their own\nchildren to have them stoned to death for what it pleased them to call\nstubbornness.\u2014But priests have always been fond of preaching up\nDeuteronomy, for Deuteronomy preaches up tythes; and it is from this\nbook, xxv. 4, they have taken the phrase, and applied it to tything,\nthat \u201cthou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth Out the corn:\u201d and\nthat this might not escape observation, they have noted it in the table\nof contents at the head of the chapter, though it is only a single\nverse of less than two lines. O priests! priests! ye are willing to be\ncompared to an ox, for the sake of tythes. [An elegant pocket edition\nof Paine\u2019s Theological Works (London. R. Carlile, 1822) has in its\ntitle a picture of Paine, as a Moses in evening dress, unfolding the\ntwo tables of his \u201cAge of Reason\u201d to a farmer from whom the Bishop of\nLlandaff (who replied to this work) has taken a sheaf and a lamb which\nhe is carrying to a church at the summit of a well stocked\nhill.\u2014Editor.]\u2014Though it is impossible for us to know identically who\nthe writer of Deuteronomy was, it is not difficult to discover him\nprofessionally, that he was some Jewish priest, who lived, as I shall\nshew in the course of this work, at least three hundred and fifty years\nafter the time of Moses.\n\nI come now to speak of the historical and chronological evidence. The\nchronology that I shall use is the Bible chronology; for I mean not to\ngo out of the Bible for evidence of any thing, but to make the Bible\nitself prove historically and chronologically that Moses is not the\nauthor of the books ascribed to him. It is therefore proper that I\ninform the readers (such an one at least as may not have the\nopportunity of knowing it) that in the larger Bibles, and also in some\nsmaller ones, there is a series of chronology printed in the margin of\nevery page for the purpose of showing how long the historical matters\nstated in each page happened, or are supposed to have happened, before\nChrist, and consequently the distance of time between one historical\ncircumstance and another.\n\nI begin with the book of Genesis.\u2014In Genesis xiv., the writer gives an\naccount of Lot being taken prisoner in a battle between the four kings\nagainst five, and carried off; and that when the account of Lot being\ntaken came to Abraham, that he armed all his household and marched to\nrescue Lot from the captors; and that he pursued them unto Dan. (ver.\n14.)\n\nTo shew in what manner this expression of Pursuing them unto Dan\napplies to the case in question, I will refer to two circumstances, the\none in America, the other in France. The city now called New York, in\nAmerica, was originally New Amsterdam; and the town in France, lately\ncalled Havre Marat, was before called Havre-de-Grace. New Amsterdam was\nchanged to New York in the year 1664; Havre-de-Grace to Havre Marat in\nthe year 1793. Should, therefore, any writing be found, though without\ndate, in which the name of New-York should be mentioned, it would be\ncertain evidence that such a writing could not have been written\nbefore, and must have been written after New Amsterdam was changed to\nNew York, and consequently not till after the year 1664, or at least\nduring the course of that year. And in like manner, any dateless\nwriting, with the name of Havre Marat, would be certain evidence that\nsuch a writing must have been written after Havre-de-Grace became Havre\nMarat, and consequently not till after the year 1793, or at least\nduring the course of that year.\n\nI now come to the application of those cases, and to show that there\nwas no such place as Dan till many years after the death of Moses; and\nconsequently, that Moses could not be the writer of the book of\nGenesis, where this account of pursuing them unto Dan is given.\n\nThe place that is called Dan in the Bible was originally a town of the\nGentiles, called Laish; and when the tribe of Dan seized upon this\ntown, they changed its name to Dan, in commemoration of Dan, who was\nthe father of that tribe, and the great grandson of Abraham.\n\nTo establish this in proof, it is necessary to refer from Genesis to\nchapter xviii. of the book called the Book of judges. It is there said\n(ver. 27) that \u201cthey (the Danites) came unto Laish to a people that\nwere quiet and secure, and they smote them with the edge of the sword\n[the Bible is filled with murder] and burned the city with fire; and\nthey built a city, (ver. 28,) and dwelt therein, and [ver. 29,] they\ncalled the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan, their father;\nhowbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first.\u201d\n\nThis account of the Danites taking possession of Laish and changing it\nto Dan, is placed in the book of Judges immediately after the death of\nSamson. The death of Samson is said to have happened B.C. 1120 and that\nof Moses B.C. 1451; and, therefore, according to the historical\narrangement, the place was not called Dan till 331 years after the\ndeath of Moses.\n\nThere is a striking confusion between the historical and the\nchronological arrangement in the book of judges. The last five\nchapters, as they stand in the book, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, are put\nchronologically before all the preceding chapters; they are made to be\n28 years before the 16th chapter, 266 before the 15th, 245 before the\n13th, 195 before the 9th, 90 before the 4th, and 15 years before the\n1st chapter. This shews the uncertain and fabulous state of the Bible.\nAccording to the chronological arrangement, the taking of Laish, and\ngiving it the name of Dan, is made to be twenty years after the death\nof Joshua, who was the successor of Moses; and by the historical order,\nas it stands in the book, it is made to be 306 years after the death of\nJoshua, and 331 after that of Moses; but they both exclude Moses from\nbeing the writer of Genesis, because, according to either of the\nstatements, no such a place as Dan existed in the time of Moses; and\ntherefore the writer of Genesis must have been some person who lived\nafter the town of Laish had the name of Dan; and who that person was\nnobody knows, and consequently the book of Genesis is anonymous, and\nwithout authority.\n\nI come now to state another point of historical and chronological\nevidence, and to show therefrom, as in the preceding case, that Moses\nis not the author of the book of Genesis.\n\nIn Genesis xxxvi. there is given a genealogy of the sons and\ndescendants of Esau, who are called Edomites, and also a list by name\nof the kings of Edom; in enumerating of which, it is said, verse 31,\n\u201cAnd these are the kings that reigned in Edom, before there reigned any\nking over the children of Israel.\u201d\n\nNow, were any dateless writing to be found, in which, speaking of any\npast events, the writer should say, these things happened before there\nwas any Congress in America, or before there was any Convention in\nFrance, it would be evidence that such writing could not have been\nwritten before, and could only be written after there was a Congress in\nAmerica or a Convention in France, as the case might be; and,\nconsequently, that it could not be written by any person who died\nbefore there was a Congress in the one country, or a Convention in the\nother.\n\nNothing is more frequent, as well in history as in conversation, than\nto refer to a fact in the room of a date: it is most natural so to do,\nbecause a fact fixes itself in the memory better than a date; secondly,\nbecause the fact includes the date, and serves to give two ideas at\nonce; and this manner of speaking by circumstances implies as\npositively that the fact alluded to is past, as if it was so expressed.\nWhen a person in speaking upon any matter, says, it was before I was\nmarried, or before my son was born, or before I went to America, or\nbefore I went to France, it is absolutely understood, and intended to\nbe understood, that he has been married, that he has had a son, that he\nhas been in America, or been in France. Language does not admit of\nusing this mode of expression in any other sense; and whenever such an\nexpression is found anywhere, it can only be understood in the sense in\nwhich only it could have been used.\n\nThe passage, therefore, that I have quoted\u2014that \u201cthese are the kings\nthat reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king over the children\nof Israel,\u201d could only have been written after the first king began to\nreign over them; and consequently that the book of Genesis, so far from\nhaving been written by Moses, could not have been written till the time\nof Saul at least. This is the positive sense of the passage; but the\nexpression, any king, implies more kings than one, at least it implies\ntwo, and this will carry it to the time of David; and, if taken in a\ngeneral sense, it carries itself through all times of the Jewish\nmonarchy.\n\nHad we met with this verse in any part of the Bible that professed to\nhave been written after kings began to reign in Israel, it would have\nbeen impossible not to have seen the application of it. It happens then\nthat this is the case; the two books of Chronicles, which give a\nhistory of all the kings of Israel, are professedly, as well as in\nfact, written after the Jewish monarchy began; and this verse that I\nhave quoted, and all the remaining verses of Genesis xxxvi. are, word\nfor word, In 1 Chronicles i., beginning at the 43d verse.\n\nIt was with consistency that the writer of the Chronicles could say as\nhe has said, 1 Chron. i. 43, \u201cThese are the kings that reigned in Edom,\nbefore there reigned any king over the children of Israel,\u201d because he\nwas going to give, and has given, a list of the kings that had reigned\nin Israel; but as it is impossible that the same expression could have\nbeen used before that period, it is as certain as any thing can be\nproved from historical language, that this part of Genesis is taken\nfrom Chronicles, and that Genesis is not so old as Chronicles, and\nprobably not so old as the book of Homer, or as \u00c6sop\u2019s Fables;\nadmitting Homer to have been, as the tables of chronology state,\ncontemporary with David or Solomon, and \u00c6sop to have lived about the\nend of the Jewish monarchy.\n\nTake away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which\nonly the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there\nremains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables,\nand traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies. The\nstory of Eve and the serpent, and of Noah and his ark, drops to a level\nwith the Arabian Tales, without the merit of being entertaining, and\nthe account of men living to eight and nine hundred years becomes as\nfabulous as the immortality of the giants of the Mythology.\n\nBesides, the character of Moses, as stated in the Bible, is the most\nhorrid that can be imagined. If those accounts be true, he was the\nwretch that first began and carried on wars on the score or on the\npretence of religion; and under that mask, or that infatuation,\ncommitted the most unexampled atrocities that are to be found in the\nhistory of any nation. Of which I will state only one instance:\n\nWhen the Jewish army returned from one of their plundering and\nmurdering excursions, the account goes on as follows (Numbers xxxi.\n13): \u201cAnd Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the\ncongregation, went forth to meet them without the camp; and Moses was\nwroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands,\nand captains over hundreds, which came from the battle; and Moses said\nunto them, \u2018Have ye saved all the women alive?\u2019 behold, these caused\nthe children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit\ntrespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague\namong the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, \u2018kill every male\namong the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by\nlying with him; but all the women-children that have not known a man by\nlying with him, keep alive for Yourselves.\u2019\u201d\n\nAmong the detestable villains that in any period of the world have\ndisgraced the name of man, it is impossible to find a greater than\nMoses, if this account be true. Here is an order to butcher the boys,\nto massacre the mothers, and debauch the daughters.\n\nLet any mother put herself in the situation of those mothers, one child\nmurdered, another destined to violation, and herself in the hands of an\nexecutioner: let any daughter put herself in the situation of those\ndaughters, destined as a prey to the murderers of a mother and a\nbrother, and what will be their feelings? It is in vain that we attempt\nto impose upon nature, for nature will have her course, and the\nreligion that tortures all her social ties is a false religion.\n\nAfter this detestable order, follows an account of the plunder taken,\nand the manner of dividing it; and here it is that the profaneings of\npriestly hypocrisy increases the catalogue of crimes. Verse 37, \u201cAnd\nthe Lord\u2019s tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and\nfifteen; and the beeves were thirty and six thousand, of which the\nLord\u2019s tribute was threescore and twelve; and the asses were thirty\nthousand, of which the Lord\u2019s tribute was threescore and one; and the\npersons were sixteen thousand, of which the Lord\u2019s tribute was thirty\nand two.\u201d In short, the matters contained in this chapter, as well as\nin many other parts of the Bible, are too horrid for humanity to read,\nor for decency to hear; for it appears, from the 35th verse of this\nchapter, that the number of women-children consigned to debauchery by\nthe order of Moses was thirty-two thousand.\n\nPeople in general know not what wickedness there is in this pretended\nword of God. Brought up in habits of superstition, they take it for\ngranted that the Bible is true, and that it is good; they permit\nthemselves not to doubt of it, and they carry the ideas they form of\nthe benevolence of the Almighty to the book which they have been taught\nto believe was written by his authority. Good heavens! it is quite\nanother thing, it is a book of lies, wickedness, and blasphemy; for\nwhat can be greater blasphemy, than to ascribe the wickedness of man to\nthe orders of the Almighty!\n\nBut to return to my subject, that of showing that Moses is not the\nauthor of the books ascribed to him, and that the Bible is spurious.\nThe two instances I have already given would be sufficient, without any\nadditional evidence, to invalidate the authenticity of any book that\npretended to be four or five hundred years more ancient than the\nmatters it speaks of, refers to, them as facts; for in the case of\npursuing them unto Dan, and of the kings that reigned over the children\nof Israel; not even the flimsy pretence of prophecy can be pleaded. The\nexpressions are in the preter tense, and it would be downright idiotism\nto say that a man could prophecy in the preter tense.\n\nBut there are many other passages scattered throughout those books that\nunite in the same point of evidence. It is said in Exodus, (another of\nthe books ascribed to Moses,) xvi. 35: \u201cAnd the children of Israel did\neat manna until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat manna until\nthey came unto the borders of the land of Canaan.\u201d\n\nWhether the children of Israel ate manna or not, or what manna was, or\nwhether it was anything more than a kind of fungus or small mushroom,\nor other vegetable substance common to that part of the country, makes\nno part of my argument; all that I mean to show is, that it is not\nMoses that could write this account, because the account extends itself\nbeyond the life time of Moses. Moses, according to the Bible, (but it\nis such a book of lies and contradictions there is no knowing which\npart to believe, or whether any) died in the wilderness, and never came\nupon the borders of \u2018the land of Canaan; and consequently, it could not\nbe he that said what the children of Israel did, or what they ate when\nthey came there. This account of eating manna, which they tell us was\nwritten by Moses, extends itself to the time of Joshua, the successor\nof Moses, as appears by the account given in the book of Joshua, after\nthe children of Israel had passed the river Jordan, and came into the\nborders of the land of Canaan. Joshua, v. 12: \u201cAnd the manna ceased on\nthe morrow, after they had eaten of the old corn of the land; neither\nhad the children of Israel manna any more, but they did eat of the\nfruit of the land of Canaan that year.\u201d\n\nBut a more remarkable instance than this occurs in Deuteronomy; which,\nwhile it shows that Moses could not be the writer of that book, shows\nalso the fabulous notions that prevailed at that time about giants\u2019 In\nDeuteronomy iii. 11, among the conquests said to be made by Moses, is\nan account of the taking of Og, king of Bashan: \u201cFor only Og, king of\nBashan, remained of the race of giants; behold, his bedstead was a\nbedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine\ncubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after\nthe cubit of a man.\u201d A cubit is 1 foot 9 888/1000 inches; the length\ntherefore of the bed was 16 feet 4 inches, and the breadth 7 feet 4\ninches: thus much for this giant\u2019s bed. Now for the historical part,\nwhich, though the evidence is not so direct and positive as in the\nformer cases, is nevertheless very presumable and corroborating\nevidence, and is better than the best evidence on the contrary side.\n\nThe writer, by way of proving the existence of this giant, refers to\nhis bed, as an ancient relick, and says, is it not in Rabbath (or\nRabbah) of the children of Ammon? meaning that it is; for such is\nfrequently the bible method of affirming a thing. But it could not be\nMoses that said this, because Moses could know nothing about Rabbah,\nnor of what was in it. Rabbah was not a city belonging to this giant\nking, nor was it one of the cities that Moses took. The knowledge\ntherefore that this bed was at Rabbah, and of the particulars of its\ndimensions, must be referred to the time when Rabbah was taken, and\nthis was not till four hundred years after the death of Moses; for\nwhich, see 2 Sam. xii. 26: \u201cAnd Joab [David\u2019s general] fought against\nRabbah of the children of Ammon, and took the royal city,\u201d etc.\n\nAs I am not undertaking to point out all the contradictions in time,\nplace, and circumstance that abound in the books ascribed to Moses, and\nwhich prove to demonstration that those books could not be written by\nMoses, nor in the time of Moses, I proceed to the book of Joshua, and\nto shew that Joshua is not the author of that book, and that it is\nanonymous and without authority. The evidence I shall produce is\ncontained in the book itself: I will not go out of the Bible for proof\nagainst the supposed authenticity of the Bible. False testimony is\nalways good against itself.\n\nJoshua, according to Joshua i., was the immediate successor of Moses;\nhe was, moreover, a military man, which Moses was not; and he continued\nas chief of the people of Israel twenty-five years; that is, from the\ntime that Moses died, which, according to the Bible chronology, was\nB.C. 1451, until B.C. 1426, when, according to the same chronology,\nJoshua died. If, therefore, we find in this book, said to have been\nwritten by Joshua, references to facts done after the death of Joshua,\nit is evidence that Joshua could not be the author; and also that the\nbook could not have been written till after the time of the latest fact\nwhich it records. As to the character of the book, it is horrid; it is\na military history of rapine and murder, as savage and brutal as those\nrecorded of his predecessor in villainy and hypocrisy, Moses; and the\nblasphemy consists, as in the former books, in ascribing those deeds to\nthe orders of the Almighty.\n\nIn the first place, the book of Joshua, as is the case in the preceding\nbooks, is written in the third person; it is the historian of Joshua\nthat speaks, for it would have been absurd and vainglorious that Joshua\nshould say of himself, as is said of him in the last verse of the sixth\nchapter, that \u201chis fame was noised throughout all the country.\u201d\u2014I now\ncome more immediately to the proof.\n\nIn Joshua xxiv. 31, it is said \u201cAnd Israel served the Lord all the days\nof Joshua, and all the days of the elders that over-lived Joshua.\u201d Now,\nin the name of common sense, can it be Joshua that relates what people\nhad done after he was dead? This account must not only have been\nwritten by some historian that lived after Joshua, but that lived also\nafter the elders that out-lived Joshua.\n\nThere are several passages of a general meaning with respect to time,\nscattered throughout the book of Joshua, that carries the time in which\nthe book was written to a distance from the time of Joshua, but without\nmarking by exclusion any particular time, as in the passage above\nquoted. In that passage, the time that intervened between the death of\nJoshua and the death of the elders is excluded descriptively and\nabsolutely, and the evidence substantiates that the book could not have\nbeen written till after the death of the last.\n\nBut though the passages to which I allude, and which I am going to\nquote, do not designate any particular time by exclusion, they imply a\ntime far more distant from the days of Joshua than is contained between\nthe death of Joshua and the death of the elders. Such is the passage,\nx. 14, where, after giving an account that the sun stood still upon\nGibeon, and the moon in the valley of Ajalon, at the command of Joshua,\n(a tale only fit to amuse children) [NOTE: This tale of the sun\nstanding still upon Motint Gibeon, and the moon in the valley of\nAjalon, is one of those fables that detects itself. Such a circumstance\ncould not have happened without being known all over the world. One\nhalf would have wondered why the sun did not rise, and the other why it\ndid not set; and the tradition of it would be universal; whereas there\nis not a nation in the world that knows anything about it. But why must\nthe moon stand still? What occasion could there be for moonlight in the\ndaytime, and that too whilst the sun shined? As a poetical figure, the\nwhole is well enough; it is akin to that in the song of Deborah and\nBarak, The stars in their courses fought against Sisera; but it is\ninferior to the figurative declaration of Mahomet to the persons who\ncame to expostulate with him on his goings on, Wert thou, said he, to\ncome to me with the sun in thy right hand and the moon in thy left, it\nshould not alter my career. For Joshua to have exceeded Mahomet, he\nshould have put the sun and moon, one in each pocket, and carried them\nas Guy Faux carried his dark lanthorn, and taken them out to shine as\nhe might happen to want them. The sublime and the ridiculous are often\nso nearly related that it is difficult to class them separately. One\nstep above the sublime makes the ridiculous, and one step above the\nridiculous makes the sublime again; the account, however, abstracted\nfrom the poetical fancy, shews the ignorance of Joshua, for he should\nhave commanded the earth to have stood still.\u2014Author.] the passage\nsays: \u201cAnd there was no day like that, before it, nor after it, that\nthe Lord hearkened to the voice of a man.\u201d\n\nThe time implied by the expression after it, that is, after that day,\nbeing put in comparison with all the time that passed before it, must,\nin order to give any expressive signification to the passage, mean a\ngreat length of time:\u2014for example, it would have been ridiculous to\nhave said so the next day, or the next week, or the next month, or the\nnext year; to give therefore meaning to the passage, comparative with\nthe wonder it relates, and the prior time it alludes to, it must mean\ncenturies of years; less however than one would be trifling, and less\nthan two would be barely admissible.\n\nA distant, but general time is also expressed in chapter viii.; where,\nafter giving an account of the taking the city of Ai, it is said, ver.\n28th, \u201cAnd Joshua burned Ai, and made it an heap for ever, a desolation\nunto this day;\u201d and again, ver. 29, where speaking of the king of Ai,\nwhom Joshua had hanged, and buried at the entering of the gate, it is\nsaid, \u201cAnd he raised thereon a great heap of stones, which remaineth\nunto this day,\u201d that is, unto the day or time in which the writer of\nthe book of Joshua lived. And again, in chapter x. where, after\nspeaking of the five kings whom Joshua had hanged on five trees, and\nthen thrown in a cave, it is said, \u201cAnd he laid great stones on the\ncave\u2019s mouth, which remain unto this very day.\u201d\n\nIn enumerating the several exploits of Joshua, and of the tribes, and\nof the places which they conquered or attempted, it is said, xv. 63,\n\u201cAs for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of\nJudah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the\nchildren of Judah AT JERUSALEM unto this day.\u201d The question upon this\npassage is, At what time did the Jebusites and the children of Judah\ndwell together at Jerusalem? As this matter occurs again in judges i. I\nshall reserve my observations till I come to that part.\n\nHaving thus shewn from the book of Joshua itself, without any auxiliary\nevidence whatever, that Joshua is not the author of that book, and that\nit is anonymous, and consequently without authority, I proceed, as\nbefore-mentioned, to the book of Judges.\n\nThe book of Judges is anonymous on the face of it; and, therefore, even\nthe pretence is wanting to call it the word of God; it has not so much\nas a nominal voucher; it is altogether fatherless.\n\nThis book begins with the same expression as the book of Joshua. That\nof Joshua begins, chap i. 1, Now after the death of Moses, etc., and\nthis of the Judges begins, Now after the death of Joshua, etc. This,\nand the similarity of stile between the two books, indicate that they\nare the work of the same author; but who he was, is altogether unknown;\nthe only point that the book proves is that the author lived long after\nthe time of Joshua; for though it begins as if it followed immediately\nafter his death, the second chapter is an epitome or abstract of the\nwhole book, which, according to the Bible chronology, extends its\nhistory through a space of 306 years; that is, from the death of\nJoshua, B.C. 1426 to the death of Samson, B.C. 1120, and only 25 years\nbefore Saul went to seek his father\u2019s asses, and was made king. But\nthere is good reason to believe, that it was not written till the time\nof David, at least, and that the book of Joshua was not written before\nthe same time.\n\nIn Judges i., the writer, after announcing the death of Joshua,\nproceeds to tell what happened between the children of Judah and the\nnative inhabitants of the land of Canaan. In this statement the writer,\nhaving abruptly mentioned Jerusalem in the 7th verse, says immediately\nafter, in the 8th verse, by way of explanation, \u201cNow the children of\nJudah had fought against Jerusalem, and taken it;\u201d consequently this\nbook could not have been written before Jerusalem had been taken. The\nreader will recollect the quotation I have just before made from Joshua\nxv. 63, where it said that the Jebusites dwell with the children of\nJudah at Jerusalem at this day; meaning the time when the book of\nJoshua was written.\n\nThe evidence I have already produced to prove that the books I have\nhitherto treated of were not written by the persons to whom they are\nascribed, nor till many years after their death, if such persons ever\nlived, is already so abundant, that I can afford to admit this passage\nwith less weight than I am entitled to draw from it. For the case is,\nthat so far as the Bible can be credited as an history, the city of\nJerusalem was not taken till the time of David; and consequently, that\nthe book of Joshua, and of Judges, were not written till after the\ncommencement of the reign of David, which was 370 years after the death\nof Joshua.\n\nThe name of the city that was afterward called Jerusalem was originally\nJebus, or Jebusi, and was the capital of the Jebusites. The account of\nDavid\u2019s taking this city is given in 2 Samuel, v. 4, etc.; also in 1\nChron. xiv. 4, etc. There is no mention in any part of the Bible that\nit was ever taken before, nor any account that favours such an opinion.\nIt is not said, either in Samuel or in Chronicles, that they \u201cutterly\ndestroyed men, women and children, that they left not a soul to\nbreathe,\u201d as is said of their other conquests; and the silence here\nobserved implies that it was taken by capitulation; and that the\nJebusites, the native inhabitants, continued to live in the place after\nit was taken. The account therefore, given in Joshua, that \u201cthe\nJebusites dwell with the children of Judah\u201d at Jerusalem at this day,\ncorresponds to no other time than after taking the city by David.\n\nHaving now shown that every book in the Bible, from Genesis to Judges,\nis without authenticity, I come to the book of Ruth, an idle, bungling\nstory, foolishly told, nobody knows by whom, about a strolling\ncountry-girl creeping slily to bed to her cousin Boaz. [The text of\nRuth does not imply the unpleasant sense Paine\u2019s words are likely to\nconvey.\u2014Editor.] Pretty stuff indeed to be called the word of God. It\nis, however, one of the best books in the Bible, for it is free from\nmurder and rapine.\n\nI come next to the two books of Samuel, and to shew that those books\nwere not written by Samuel, nor till a great length of time after the\ndeath of Samuel; and that they are, like all the former books,\nanonymous, and without authority.\n\nTo be convinced that these books have been written much later than the\ntime of Samuel, and consequently not by him, it is only necessary to\nread the account which the writer gives of Saul going to seek his\nfather\u2019s asses, and of his interview with Samuel, of whom Saul went to\nenquire about those lost asses, as foolish people now-a-days go to a\nconjuror to enquire after lost things.\n\nThe writer, in relating this story of Saul, Samuel, and the asses, does\nnot tell it as a thing that had just then happened, but as an ancient\nstory in the time this writer lived; for he tells it in the language or\nterms used at the time that Samuel lived, which obliges the writer to\nexplain the story in the terms or language used in the time the writer\nlived.\n\nSamuel, in the account given of him in the first of those books, chap.\nix. 13 called the seer; and it is by this term that Saul enquires after\nhim, ver. 11, \u201cAnd as they [Saul and his servant] went up the hill to\nthe city, they found young maidens going out to draw water; and they\nsaid unto them, Is the seer here?\u201d Saul then went according to the\ndirection of these maidens, and met Samuel without knowing him, and\nsaid unto him, ver. 18, \u201cTell me, I pray thee, where the seer\u2019s house\nis? and Samuel answered Saul, and said, I am the seer.\u201d\n\nAs the writer of the book of Samuel relates these questions and\nanswers, in the language or manner of speaking used in the time they\nare said to have been spoken, and as that manner of speaking was out of\nuse when this author wrote, he found it necessary, in order to make the\nstory understood, to explain the terms in which these questions and\nanswers are spoken; and he does this in the 9th verse, where he says,\n\u201cBefore-time in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he\nspake, Come let us go to the seer; for he that is now called a prophet,\nwas before-time called a seer.\u201d This proves, as I have before said,\nthat this story of Saul, Samuel, and the asses, was an ancient story at\nthe time the book of Samuel was written, and consequently that Samuel\ndid not write it, and that the book is without authenticity.\n\nBut if we go further into those books the evidence is still more\npositive that Samuel is not the writer of them; for they relate things\nthat did not happen till several years after the death of Samuel.\nSamuel died before Saul; for i Samuel, xxviii. tells, that Saul and the\nwitch of Endor conjured Samuel up after he was dead; yet the history of\nmatters contained in those books is extended through the remaining part\nof Saul\u2019s life, and to the latter end of the life of David, who\nsucceeded Saul. The account of the death and burial of Samuel (a thing\nwhich he could not write himself) is related in i Samuel xxv.; and the\nchronology affixed to this chapter makes this to be B.C. 1060; yet the\nhistory of this first book is brought down to B.C. 1056, that is, to\nthe death of Saul, which was not till four years after the death of\nSamuel.\n\nThe second book of Samuel begins with an account of things that did not\nhappen till four years after Samuel was dead; for it begins with the\nreign of David, who succeeded Saul, and it goes on to the end of\nDavid\u2019s reign, which was forty-three years after the death of Samuel;\nand, therefore, the books are in themselves positive evidence that they\nwere not written by Samuel.\n\nI have now gone through all the books in the first part of the Bible,\nto which the names of persons are affixed, as being the authors of\nthose books, and which the church, styling itself the Christian church,\nhave imposed upon the world as the writings of Moses, Joshua and\nSamuel; and I have detected and proved the falsehood of this\nimposition.\u2014And now ye priests, of every description, who have preached\nand written against the former part of the \u2018Age of Reason,\u2019 what have\nye to say? Will ye with all this mass of evidence against you, and\nstaring you in the face, still have the assurance to march into your\npulpits, and continue to impose these books on your congregations, as\nthe works of inspired penmen and the word of God? when it is as evident\nas demonstration can make truth appear, that the persons who ye say are\nthe authors, are not the authors, and that ye know not who the authors\nare. What shadow of pretence have ye now to produce for continuing the\nblasphemous fraud? What have ye still to offer against the pure and\nmoral religion of deism, in support of your system of falsehood,\nidolatry, and pretended revelation? Had the cruel and murdering orders,\nwith which the Bible is filled, and the numberless torturing executions\nof men, women, and children, in consequence of those orders, been\nascribed to some friend, whose memory you revered, you would have\nglowed with satisfaction at detecting the falsehood of the charge, and\ngloried in defending his injured fame. It is because ye are sunk in the\ncruelty of superstition, or feel no interest in the honour of your\nCreator, that ye listen to the horrid tales of the Bible, or hear them\nwith callous indifference. The evidence I have produced, and shall\nstill produce in the course of this work, to prove that the Bible is\nwithout authority, will, whilst it wounds the stubbornness of a priest,\nrelieve and tranquillize the minds of millions: it will free them from\nall those hard thoughts of the Almighty which priestcraft and the Bible\nhad infused into their minds, and which stood in everlasting opposition\nto all their ideas of his moral justice and benevolence.\n\nI come now to the two books of Kings, and the two books of\nChronicles.\u2014Those books are altogether historical, and are chiefly\nconfined to the lives and actions of the Jewish kings, who in general\nwere a parcel of rascals: but these are matters with which we have no\nmore concern than we have with the Roman emperors, or Homer\u2019s account\nof the Trojan war. Besides which, as those books are anonymous, and as\nwe know nothing of the writer, or of his character, it is impossible\nfor us to know what degree of credit to give to the matters related\ntherein. Like all other ancient histories, they appear to be a jumble\nof fable and of fact, and of probable and of improbable things, but\nwhich distance of time and place, and change of circumstances in the\nworld, have rendered obsolete and uninteresting.\n\nThe chief use I shall make of those books will be that of comparing\nthem with each other, and with other parts of the Bible, to show the\nconfusion, contradiction, and cruelty in this pretended word of God.\n\nThe first book of Kings begins with the reign of Solomon, which,\naccording to the Bible chronology, was B.C. 1015; and the second book\nends B.C. 588, being a little after the reign of Zedekiah, whom\nNebuchadnezzar, after taking Jerusalem and conquering the Jews, carried\ncaptive to Babylon. The two books include a space of 427 years.\n\nThe two books of Chronicles are an history of the same times, and in\ngeneral of the same persons, by another author; for it would be absurd\nto suppose that the same author wrote the history twice over. The first\nbook of Chronicles (after giving the genealogy from Adam to Saul, which\ntakes up the first nine chapters) begins with the reign of David; and\nthe last book ends, as in the last book of Kings, soon, after the reign\nof Zedekiah, about B.C. 588. The last two verses of the last chapter\nbring the history 52 years more forward, that is, to 536. But these\nverses do not belong to the book, as I shall show when I come to speak\nof the book of Ezra.\n\nThe two books of Kings, besides the history of Saul, David, and\nSolomon, who reigned over all Israel, contain an abstract of the lives\nof seventeen kings, and one queen, who are stiled kings of Judah; and\nof nineteen, who are stiled kings of Israel; for the Jewish nation,\nimmediately on the death of Solomon, split into two parties, who chose\nseparate kings, and who carried on most rancorous wars against each\nother.\n\nThese two books are little more than a history of assassinations,\ntreachery, and wars. The cruelties that the Jews had accustomed\nthemselves to practise on the Canaanites, whose country they had\nsavagely invaded, under a pretended gift from God, they afterwards\npractised as furiously on each other. Scarcely half their kings died a\nnatural death, and in some instances whole families were destroyed to\nsecure possession to the successor, who, after a few years, and\nsometimes only a few months, or less, shared the same fate. In 2 Kings\nx., an account is given of two baskets full of children\u2019s heads,\nseventy in number, being exposed at the entrance of the city; they were\nthe children of Ahab, and were murdered by the orders of Jehu, whom\nElisha, the pretended man of God, had anointed to be king over Israel,\non purpose to commit this bloody deed, and assassinate his predecessor.\nAnd in the account of the reign of Menahem, one of the kings of Israel\nwho had murdered Shallum, who had reigned but one month, it is said, 2\nKings xv. 16, that Menahem smote the city of Tiphsah, because they\nopened not the city to him, and all the women therein that were with\nchild he ripped up.\n\nCould we permit ourselves to suppose that the Almighty would\ndistinguish any nation of people by the name of his chosen people, we\nmust suppose that people to have been an example to all the rest of the\nworld of the purest piety and humanity, and not such a nation of\nruffians and cut-throats as the ancient Jews were,\u2014a people who,\ncorrupted by and copying after such monsters and imposters as Moses and\nAaron, Joshua, Samuel, and David, had distinguished themselves above\nall others on the face of the known earth for barbarity and wickedness.\nIf we will not stubbornly shut our eyes and steel our hearts it is\nimpossible not to see, in spite of all that long-established\nsuperstition imposes upon the mind, that the flattering appellation of\nhis chosen people is no other than a LIE which the priests and leaders\nof the Jews had invented to cover the baseness of their own characters;\nand which Christian priests sometimes as corrupt, and often as cruel,\nhave professed to believe.\n\nThe two books of Chronicles are a repetition of the same crimes; but\nthe history is broken in several places, by the author leaving out the\nreign of some of their kings; and in this, as well as in that of Kings,\nthere is such a frequent transition from kings of Judah to kings of\nIsrael, and from kings of Israel to kings of Judah, that the narrative\nis obscure in the reading. In the same book the history sometimes\ncontradicts itself: for example, in 2 Kings, i. 17, we are told, but in\nrather ambiguous terms, that after the death of Ahaziah, king of\nIsrael, Jehoram, or Joram, (who was of the house of Ahab), reigned in\nhis stead in the second Year of Jehoram, or Joram, son of Jehoshaphat,\nking of Judah; and in viii. 16, of the same book, it is said, \u201cAnd in\nthe fifth year of Joram, the son of Ahab, king of Israel, Jehoshaphat\nbeing then king of Judah, Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat king of\njudah, began to reign.\u201d That is, one chapter says Joram of Judah began\nto reign in the second year of Joram of Israel; and the other chapter\nsays, that Joram of Israel began to reign in the fifth year of Joram of\nJudah.\n\nSeveral of the most extraordinary matters related in one history, as\nhaving happened during the reign of such or such of their kings, are\nnot to be found in the other, in relating the reign of the same king:\nfor example, the two first rival kings, after the death of Solomon,\nwere Rehoboam and Jeroboam; and in i Kings xii. and xiii. an account is\ngiven of Jeroboam making an offering of burnt incense, and that a man,\nwho is there called a man of God, cried out against the altar (xiii.\n2): \u201cO altar, altar! thus saith the Lord: Behold, a child shall be born\nunto the house of David, Josiah by name, and upon thee shall he offer\nthe priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men\u2019s\nbones shall be burned upon thee.\u201d Verse 4: \u201cAnd it came to pass, when\nking Jeroboam heard the saying of the man of God, which had cried\nagainst the altar in Bethel, that he put forth his hand from the altar,\nsaying, Lay hold on him; and his hand which he put out against him\ndried up so that he could not pull it again to him.\u201d\n\nOne would think that such an extraordinary case as this, (which is\nspoken of as a judgement,) happening to the chief of one of the\nparties, and that at the first moment of the separation of the\nIsraelites into two nations, would, if it,. had been true, have been\nrecorded in both histories. But though men, in later times, have\nbelieved all that the prophets have said unto them, it does appear that\nthose prophets, or historians, disbelieved each other: they knew each\nother too well.\n\nA long account also is given in Kings about Elijah. It runs through\nseveral chapters, and concludes with telling, 2 Kings ii. 11, \u201cAnd it\ncame to pass, as they (Elijah and Elisha) still went on, and talked,\nthat, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire, and\nparted them both asunder, and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into\nheaven.\u201d Hum! this the author of Chronicles, miraculous as the story\nis, makes no mention of, though he mentions Elijah by name; neither\ndoes he say anything of the story related in the second chapter of the\nsame book of Kings, of a parcel of children calling Elisha bald head;\nand that this man of God (ver. 24) \u201cturned back, and looked upon them,\nand cursed them in the name of the Lord; and there came forth two\nshe-bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.\u201d He\nalso passes over in silence the story told, 2 Kings xiii., that when\nthey were burying a man in the sepulchre where Elisha had been buried,\nit happened that the dead man, as they were letting him down, (ver. 21)\n\u201ctouched the bones of Elisha, and he (the dead man) revived, and stood\nup on his feet.\u201d The story does not tell us whether they buried the\nman, notwithstanding he revived and stood upon his feet, or drew him up\nagain. Upon all these stories the writer of the Chronicles is as silent\nas any writer of the present day, who did not chose to be accused of\nlying, or at least of romancing, would be about stories of the same\nkind.\n\nBut, however these two historians may differ from each other with\nrespect to the tales related by either, they are silent alike with\nrespect to those men styled prophets whose writings fill up the latter\npart of the Bible. Isaiah, who lived in the time of Hezekiab, is\nmentioned in Kings, and again in Chronicles, when these histories are\nspeaking of that reign; but except in one or two instances at most, and\nthose very slightly, none of the rest are so much as spoken of, or even\ntheir existence hinted at; though, according to the Bible chronology,\nthey lived within the time those histories were written; and some of\nthem long before. If those prophets, as they are called, were men of\nsuch importance in their day, as the compilers of the Bible, and\npriests and commentators have since represented them to be, how can it\nbe accounted for that not one of those histories should say anything\nabout them?\n\nThe history in the books of Kings and of Chronicles is brought forward,\nas I have already said, to the year B.C. 588; it will, therefore, be\nproper to examine which of these prophets lived before that period.\n\nHere follows a table of all the prophets, with the times in which they\nlived before Christ, according to the chronology affixed to the first\nchapter of each of the books of the prophets; and also of the number of\nyears they lived before the books of Kings and Chronicles were written:\n\nTABLE of the Prophets, with the time in which they lived before Christ,\nand also before the books of Kings and Chronicles were written:\n\n\n                      Years     Years before\n       NAMES.         before     Kings and     Observations.\n                      Christ.   Chronicles.\n\n  Isaiah............... 760      172            mentioned.\n\n\n                                                (mentioned only in\n  Jeremiah............. 629       41            the last [two] chapters\n                                                of Chronicles.\n\n  Ezekiel.............. 595        7            not mentioned.\n\n  Daniel............... 607       19            not mentioned.\n\n  Hosea................ 785       97            not mentioned.\n\n  Joel................. 800      212            not mentioned.\n\n  Amos................. 789      199            not mentioned.\n\n  Obadiah.............. 789      199            not mentioned.\n\n  Jonah................ 862      274            see the note.\n\n  Micah................ 750      162            not mentioned.\n\n  Nahum................ 713      125            not mentioned.\n\n  Habakkuk............. 620       38            not mentioned.\n\n  Zepbaniah............ 630       42            not mentioned.\n\n\nHaggai Zechariah all three after the year 588 Medachi [NOTE In 2 Kings\nxiv. 25, the name of Jonah is mentioned on account of the restoration\nof a tract of land by Jeroboam; but nothing further is said of him, nor\nis any allusion made to the book of Jonah, nor to his expedition to\nNineveh, nor to his encounter with the whale.\u2014Author.]\n\nThis table is either not very honourable for the Bible historians, or\nnot very honourable for the Bible prophets; and I leave to priests and\ncommentators, who are very learned in little things, to settle the\npoint of etiquette between the two; and to assign a reason, why the\nauthors of Kings and of Chronicles have treated those prophets, whom,\nin the former part of the \u2018Age of Reason,\u2019 I have considered as poets,\nwith as much degrading silence as any historian of the present day\nwould treat Peter Pindar.\n\nI have one more observation to make on the book of Chronicles; after\nwhich I shall pass on to review the remaining books of the Bible.\n\nIn my observations on the book of Genesis, I have quoted a passage from\nxxxvi. 31, which evidently refers to a time, after that kings began to\nreign over the children of Israel; and I have shown that as this verse\nis verbatim the same as in 1 Chronicles i. 43, where it stands\nconsistently with the order of history, which in Genesis it does not,\nthat the verse in Genesis, and a great part of the 36th chapter, have\nbeen taken from Chronicles; and that the book of Genesis, though it is\nplaced first in the Bible, and ascribed to Moses, has been manufactured\nby some unknown person, after the book of Chronicles was written, which\nwas not until at least eight hundred and sixty years after the time of\nMoses.\n\nThe evidence I proceed by to substantiate this, is regular, and has in\nit but two stages. First, as I have already stated, that the passage in\nGenesis refers itself for time to Chronicles; secondly, that the book\nof Chronicles, to which this passage refers itself, was not begun to be\nwritten until at least eight hundred and sixty years after the time of\nMoses. To prove this, we have only to look into 1 Chronicles iii. 15,\nwhere the writer, in giving the genealogy of the descendants of David,\nmentions Zedekiah; and it was in the time of Zedekiah that\nNebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem, B.C. 588, and consequently more\nthan 860 years after Moses. Those who have superstitiously boasted of\nthe antiquity of the Bible, and particularly of the books ascribed to\nMoses, have done it without examination, and without any other\nauthority than that of one credulous man telling it to another: for, so\nfar as historical and chronological evidence applies, the very first\nbook in the Bible is not so ancient as the book of Homer, by more than\nthree hundred years, and is about the same age with \u00c6sop\u2019s Fables.\n\nI am not contending for the morality of Homer; on the contrary, I think\nit a book of false glory, and tending to inspire immoral and\nmischievous notions of honour; and with respect to \u00c6sop, though the\nmoral is in general just, the fable is often cruel; and the cruelty of\nthe fable does more injury to the heart, especially in a child, than\nthe moral does good to the judgment.\n\nHaving now dismissed Kings and Chronicles, I come to the next in\ncourse, the book of Ezra.\n\nAs one proof, among others I shall produce to shew the disorder in\nwhich this pretended word of God, the Bible, has been put together, and\nthe uncertainty of who the authors were, we have only to look at the\nfirst three verses in Ezra, and the last two in 2 Chronicles; for by\nwhat kind of cutting and shuffling has it been that the first three\nverses in Ezra should be the last two verses in 2 Chronicles, or that\nthe last two in 2 Chronicles should be the first three in Ezra? Either\nthe authors did not know their own works or the compilers did not know\nthe authors.\n\nLast Two Verses of 2 Chronicles.\n\nVer. 22. Now in the first year of Cyrus, King of Persia, that the word\nof the Lord, spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah, might be accomplished,\nthe Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, that he made a\nproclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing,\nsaying.\n\nearth hath the Lord God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to\nbuild him an house in Jerusalem which is in Judah. Who is there among\nyou of all his people? the Lord his God be with him, and let him go up.\n***\n\nFirst Three Verses of Ezra.\n\nVer. 1. Now in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, that the word\nof the Lord, by the mouth of Jeremiah, might be fulfilled, the Lord\nstirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, that he made a\nproclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing,\nsaying.\n\n2. Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given\nme all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him\nan house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.\n\n3. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and\nlet him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of\nthe Lord God of Israel (he is the God) which is in Jerusalem.\n\n*** The last verse in Chronicles is broken abruptly, and ends in the\nmiddle of the phrase with the word \u2018up\u2019 without signifying to what\nplace. This abrupt break, and the appearance of the same verses in\ndifferent books, show as I have already said, the disorder and\nignorance in which the Bible has been put together, and that the\ncompilers of it had no authority for what they were doing, nor we any\nauthority for believing what they have done. [NOTE I observed, as I\npassed along, several broken and senseless passages in the Bible,\nwithout thinking them of consequence enough to be introduced in the\nbody of the work; such as that, 1 Samuel xiii. 1, where it is said,\n\u201cSaul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,\nSaul chose him three thousand men,\u201d &c. The first part of the verse,\nthat Saul reigned one year has no sense, since it does not tell us what\nSaul did, nor say any thing of what happened at the end of that one\nyear; and it is, besides, mere absurdity to say he reigned one year,\nwhen the very next phrase says he had reigned two for if he had reigned\ntwo, it was impossible not to have reigned one.\n\nAnother instance occurs in Joshua v. where the writer tells us a story\nof an angel (for such the table of contents at the head of the chapter\ncalls him) appearing unto Joshua; and the story ends abruptly, and\nwithout any conclusion. The story is as follows:\u2014Ver. 13. \u201cAnd it came\nto pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and\nlooked, and behold there stood a man over against him with his sword\ndrawn in his hand; and Joshua went unto him and said unto him, Art thou\nfor us, or for our adversaries?\u201d Verse 14, \u201cAnd he said, Nay; but as\ncaptain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his\nface to the earth, and did worship and said unto him, What saith my\nLord unto his servant?\u201d Verse 15, \u201cAnd the captain of the Lord\u2019s host\nsaid unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place\nwhereon thou standeth is holy. And Joshua did so.\u201d\u2014And what then?\nnothing: for here the story ends, and the chapter too.\n\nEither this story is broken off in the middle, or it is a story told by\nsome Jewish humourist in ridicule of Joshua\u2019s pretended mission from\nGod, and the compilers of the Bible, not perceiving the design of the\nstory, have told it as a serious matter. As a story of humour and\nridicule it has a great deal of point; for it pompously introduces an\nangel in the figure of a man, with a drawn sword in his hand, before\nwhom Joshua falls on his face to the earth, and worships (which is\ncontrary to their second commandment;) and then, this most important\nembassy from heaven ends in telling Joshua to pull off his shoe. It\nmight as well have told him to pull up his breeches.\n\nIt is certain, however, that the Jews did not credit every thing their\nleaders told them, as appears from the cavalier manner in which they\nspeak of Moses, when he was gone into the mount. As for this Moses, say\nthey, we wot not what is become of him. Exod. xxxii. 1.\u2014Author.\n\nThe only thing that has any appearance of certainty in the book of Ezra\nis the time in which it was written, which was immediately after the\nreturn of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity, about B.C. 536. Ezra\n(who, according to the Jewish commentators, is the same person as is\ncalled Esdras in the Apocrypha) was one of the persons who returned,\nand who, it is probable, wrote the account of that affair. Nebemiah,\nwhose book follows next to Ezra, was another of the returned persons;\nand who, it is also probable, wrote the account of the same affair, in\nthe book that bears his name. But those accounts are nothing to us, nor\nto any other person, unless it be to the Jews, as a part of the history\nof their nation; and there is just as much of the word of God in those\nbooks as there is in any of the histories of France, or Rapin\u2019s history\nof England, or the history of any other country.\n\nBut even in matters of historical record, neither of those writers are\nto be depended upon. In Ezra ii., the writer gives a list of the tribes\nand families, and of the precise number of souls of each, that returned\nfrom Babylon to Jerusalem; and this enrolment of the persons so\nreturned appears to have been one of the principal objects for writing\nthe book; but in this there is an error that destroys the intention of\nthe undertaking.\n\nThe writer begins his enrolment in the following manner (ii. 3): \u201cThe\nchildren of Parosh, two thousand one hundred seventy and four.\u201d Ver. 4,\n\u201cThe children of Shephatiah, three hundred seventy and two.\u201d And in\nthis manner he proceeds through all the families; and in the 64th\nverse, he makes a total, and says, the whole congregation together was\nforty and two thousand three hundred and threescore.\n\nBut whoever will take the trouble of casting up the several\nparticulars, will find that the total is but 29,818; so that the error\nis 12,542. What certainty then can there be in the Bible for any thing?\n\n[Here Mr. Paine includes the long list of numbers from the Bible of all\nthe children listed and the total thereof. This can be had directly\nfrom the Bible.]\n\nNehemiah, in like manner, gives a list of the returned families, and of\nthe number of each family. He begins as in Ezra, by saying (vii. 8):\n\u201cThe children of Parosh, two thousand three hundred and seventy-two;\u201d\nand so on through all the families. (The list differs in several of the\nparticulars from that of Ezra.) In ver. 66, Nehemiah makes a total, and\nsays, as Ezra had said, \u201cThe whole congregation together was forty and\ntwo thousand three hundred and threescore.\u201d But the particulars of this\nlist make a total but of 31,089, so that the error here is 11,271.\nThese writers may do well enough for Bible-makers, but not for any\nthing where truth and exactness is necessary.\n\nThe next book in course is the book of Esther. If Madam Esther thought\nit any honour to offer herself as a kept mistress to Ahasuerus, or as a\nrival to Queen Vashti, who had refused to come to a drunken king in the\nmidst of a drunken company, to be made a show of, (for the account\nsays, they had been drinking seven days, and were merry,) let Esther\nand Mordecai look to that, it is no business of ours, at least it is\nnone of mine; besides which, the story has a great deal the appearance\nof being fabulous, and is also anonymous. I pass on to the book of Job.\n\nThe book of Job differs in character from all the books we have\nhitherto passed over. Treachery and murder make no part of this book;\nit is the meditations of a mind strongly impressed with the\nvicissitudes of human life, and by turns sinking under, and struggling\nagainst the pressure. It is a highly wrought composition, between\nwilling submission and involuntary discontent; and shows man, as he\nsometimes is, more disposed to be resigned than he is capable of being.\nPatience has but a small share in the character of the person of whom\nthe book treats; on the contrary, his grief is often impetuous; but he\nstill endeavours to keep a guard upon it, and seems determined, in the\nmidst of accumulating ills, to impose upon himself the hard duty of\ncontentment.\n\nI have spoken in a respectful manner of the book of Job in the former\npart of the \u2018Age of Reason,\u2019 but without knowing at that time what I\nhave learned since; which is, that from all the evidence that can be\ncollected, the book of Job does not belong to the Bible.\n\nI have seen the opinion of two Hebrew commentators, Abenezra and\nSpinoza, upon this subject; they both say that the book of Job carries\nno internal evidence of being an Hebrew book; that the genius of the\ncomposition, and the drama of the piece, are not Hebrew; that it has\nbeen translated from another language into Hebrew, and that the author\nof the book was a Gentile; that the character represented under the\nname of Satan (which is the first and only time this name is mentioned\nin the Bible) [In a later work Paine notes that in \u201cthe Bible\u201d (by\nwhich he always means the Old Testament alone) the word Satan occurs\nalso in 1 Chron. xxi. 1, and remarks that the action there ascribed to\nSatan is in 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, attributed to Jehovah (\u201cEssay on Dreams\u201d).\nIn these places, however, and in Ps. cix. 6, Satan means \u201cadversary,\u201d\nand is so translated (A.S. version) in 2 Sam. xix. 22, and 1 Kings v.\n4, xi. 25. As a proper name, with the article, Satan appears in the Old\nTestament only in Job and in Zech. iii. 1, 2. But the authenticity of\nthe passage in Zechariah has been questioned, and it may be that in\nfinding the proper name of Satan in Job alone, Paine was following some\nopinion met with in one of the authorities whose comments are condensed\nin his paragraph.\u2014Editor.] does not correspond to any Hebrew idea; and\nthat the two convocations which the Deity is supposed to have made of\nthose whom the poem calls sons of God, and the familiarity which this\nsupposed Satan is stated to have with the Deity, are in the same case.\n\nIt may also be observed, that the book shows itself to be the\nproduction of a mind cultivated in science, which the Jews, so far from\nbeing famous for, were very ignorant of. The allusions to objects of\nnatural philosophy are frequent and strong, and are of a different cast\nto any thing in the books known to be Hebrew. The astronomical names,\nPleiades, Orion, and Arcturus, are Greek and not Hebrew names, and it\ndoes not appear from any thing that is to be found in the Bible that\nthe Jews knew any thing of astronomy, or that they studied it, they had\nno translation of those names into their own language, but adopted the\nnames as they found them in the poem. [Paine\u2019s Jewish critic, David\nLevi, fastened on this slip (\u201cDefence of the Old Testament,\u201d 1797, p.\n152). In the original the names are Ash (Arcturus), Kesil\u2019 (Orion),\nKimah\u2019 (Pleiades), though the identifications of the constellations in\nthe A.S.V. have been questioned.\u2014Editor.]\n\nThat the Jews did translate the literary productions of the Gentile\nnations into the Hebrew language, and mix them with their own, is not a\nmatter of doubt; Proverbs xxxi. i, is an evidence of this: it is there\nsaid, The word of king Lemuel, the prophecy which his mother taught\nhim. This verse stands as a preface to the proverbs that follow, and\nwhich are not the proverbs of Solomon, but of Lemuel; and this Lemuel\nwas not one of the kings of Israel, nor of Judah, but of some other\ncountry, and consequently a Gentile. The Jews however have adopted his\nproverbs; and as they cannot give any account who the author of the\nbook of Job was, nor how they came by the book, and as it differs in\ncharacter from the Hebrew writings, and stands totally unconnected with\nevery other book and chapter in the Bible before it and after it, it\nhas all the circumstantial evidence of being originally a book of the\nGentiles. [The prayer known by the name of Agur\u2019s Prayer, in Proverbs\nxxx.,\u2014immediately preceding the proverbs of Lemuel,\u2014and which is the\nonly sensible, well-conceived, and well-expressed prayer in the Bible,\nhas much the appearance of being a prayer taken from the Gentiles. The\nname of Agur occurs on no other occasion than this; and he is\nintroduced, together with the prayer ascribed to him, in the same\nmanner, and nearly in the same words, that Lemuel and his proverbs are\nintroduced in the chapter that follows. The first verse says, \u201cThe\nwords of Agur, the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy:\u201d here the word\nprophecy is used with the same application it has in the following\nchapter of Lemuel, unconnected with anything of prediction. The prayer\nof Agur is in the 8th and 9th verses, \u201cRemove far from me vanity and\nlies; give me neither riches nor poverty, but feed me with food\nconvenient for me; lest I be full and deny thee and say, Who is the\nLord? or lest I be poor and steal, and take the name of my God in\nvain.\u201d This has not any of the marks of being a Jewish prayer, for the\nJews never prayed but when they were in trouble, and never for anything\nbut victory, vengeance, or riches.\u2014Author. (Prov. xxx. 1, and xxxi. 1)\nthe word \u201cprophecy\u201d in these verses is translated \u201coracle\u201d or \u201cburden\u201d\n(marg.) in the revised version.\u2014The prayer of Agur was quoted by Paine\nin his plea for the officers of Excise, 1772.\u2014Editor.]\n\nThe Bible-makers, and those regulators of time, the Bible\nchronologists, appear to have been at a loss where to place and how to\ndispose of the book of Job; for it contains no one historical\ncircumstance, nor allusion to any, that might serve to determine its\nplace in the Bible. But it would not have answered the purpose of these\nmen to have informed the world of their ignorance; and, therefore, they\nhave affixed it to the aera of B.C. 1520, which is during the time the\nIsraelites were in Egypt, and for which they have just as much\nauthority and no more than I should have for saying it was a thousand\nyears before that period. The probability however is, that it is older\nthan any book in the Bible; and it is the only one that can be read\nwithout indignation or disgust.\n\nWe know nothing of what the ancient Gentile world (as it is called) was\nbefore the time of the Jews, whose practice has been to calumniate and\nblacken the character of all other nations; and it is from the Jewish\naccounts that we have learned to call them heathens. But, as far as we\nknow to the contrary, they were a just and moral people, and not\naddicted, like the Jews, to cruelty and revenge, but of whose\nprofession of faith we are unacquainted. It appears to have been their\ncustom to personify both virtue and vice by statues and images, as is\ndone now-a-days both by statuary and by painting; but it does not\nfollow from this that they worshipped them any more than we do.\u2014I pass\non to the book of,\n\nPsalms, of which it is not necessary to make much observation. Some of\nthem are moral, and others are very revengeful; and the greater part\nrelates to certain local circumstances of the Jewish nation at the time\nthey were written, with which we have nothing to do. It is, however, an\nerror or an imposition to call them the Psalms of David; they are a\ncollection, as song-books are now-a-days, from different song-writers,\nwho lived at different times. The 137th Psalm could not have been\nwritten till more than 400 years after the time of David, because it is\nwritten in commemoration of an event, the captivity of the Jews in\nBabylon, which did not happen till that distance of time. \u201cBy the\nrivers of Babylon we sat down; yea, we wept when we remembered Zion. We\nhanged our harps upon the willows, in the midst thereof; for there they\nthat carried us away captive required of us a song, saying, sing us one\nof the songs of Zion.\u201d As a man would say to an American, or to a\nFrenchman, or to an Englishman, sing us one of your American songs, or\nyour French songs, or your English songs. This remark, with respect to\nthe time this psalm was written, is of no other use than to show (among\nothers already mentioned) the general imposition the world has been\nunder with respect to the authors of the Bible. No regard has been paid\nto time, place, and circumstance; and the names of persons have been\naffixed to the several books which it was as impossible they should\nwrite, as that a man should walk in procession at his own funeral.\n\nThe Book of Proverbs. These, like the Psalms, are a collection, and\nthat from authors belonging to other nations than those of the Jewish\nnation, as I have shewn in the observations upon the book of Job;\nbesides which, some of the Proverbs ascribed to Solomon did not appear\ntill two hundred and fifty years after the death of Solomon; for it is\nsaid in xxv. i, \u201cThese are also proverbs of Solomon which the men of\nHezekiah, king of Judah, copied out.\u201d It was two hundred and fifty\nyears from the time of Solomon to the time of Hezekiah. When a man is\nfamous and his name is abroad he is made the putative father of things\nhe never said or did; and this, most probably, has been the case with\nSolomon. It appears to have been the fashion of that day to make\nproverbs, as it is now to make jest-books, and father them upon those\nwho never saw them. [A \u201cTom Paine\u2019s Jest Book\u201d had appeared in London\nwith little or nothing of Paine in it.\u2014Editor.]\n\nThe book of Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher, is also ascribed to Solomon,\nand that with much reason, if not with truth. It is written as the\nsolitary reflections of a worn-out debauchee, such as Solomon was, who\nlooking back on scenes he can no longer enjoy, cries out All is Vanity!\nA great deal of the metaphor and of the sentiment is obscure, most\nprobably by translation; but enough is left to show they were strongly\npointed in the original. [Those that look out of the window shall be\ndarkened, is an obscure figure in translation for loss of\nsight.\u2014Author.] From what is transmitted to us of the character of\nSolomon, he was witty, ostentatious, dissolute, and at last melancholy.\nHe lived fast, and died, tired of the world, at the age of fifty-eight\nyears.\n\nSeven hundred wives, and three hundred concubines, are worse than none;\nand, however it may carry with it the appearance of heightened\nenjoyment, it defeats all the felicity of affection, by leaving it no\npoint to fix upon; divided love is never happy. This was the case with\nSolomon; and if he could not, with all his pretensions to wisdom,\ndiscover it beforehand, he merited, unpitied, the mortification he\nafterwards endured. In this point of view, his preaching is\nunnecessary, because, to know the consequences, it is only necessary to\nknow the cause. Seven hundred wives, and three hundred concubines would\nhave stood in place of the whole book. It was needless after this to\nsay that all was vanity and vexation of spirit; for it is impossible to\nderive happiness from the company of those whom we deprive of\nhappiness.\n\nTo be happy in old age it is necessary that we accustom ourselves to\nobjects that can accompany the mind all the way through life, and that\nwe take the rest as good in their day. The mere man of pleasure is\nmiserable in old age; and the mere drudge in business is but little\nbetter: whereas, natural philosophy, mathematical and mechanical\nscience, are a continual source of tranquil pleasure, and in spite of\nthe gloomy dogmas of priests, and of superstition, the study of those\nthings is the study of the true theology; it teaches man to know and to\nadmire the Creator, for the principles of science are in the creation,\nand are unchangeable, and of divine origin.\n\nThose who knew Benjamin Franklin will recollect, that his mind was ever\nyoung; his temper ever serene; science, that never grows grey, was\nalways his mistress. He was never without an object; for when we cease\nto have an object we become like an invalid in an hospital waiting for\ndeath.\n\nSolomon\u2019s Songs, amorous and foolish enough, but which wrinkled\nfanaticism has called divine.\u2014The compilers of the Bible have placed\nthese songs after the book of Ecclesiastes; and the chronologists have\naffixed to them the aera of B.C. 1014, at which time Solomon, according\nto the same chronology, was nineteen years of age, and was then forming\nhis seraglio of wives and concubines. The Bible-makers and the\nchronologists should have managed this matter a little better, and\neither have said nothing about the time, or chosen a time less\ninconsistent with the supposed divinity of those songs; for Solomon was\nthen in the honey-moon of one thousand debaucheries.\n\nIt should also have occurred to them, that as he wrote, if he did\nwrite, the book of Ecclesiastes, long after these songs, and in which\nhe exclaims that all is vanity and vexation of spirit, that he included\nthose songs in that description. This is the more probable, because he\nsays, or somebody for him, Ecclesiastes ii. 8, I got me men-singers,\nand women-singers [most probably to sing those songs], and musical\ninstruments of all sorts; and behold (Ver. ii), \u201call was vanity and\nvexation of spirit.\u201d The compilers however have done their work but by\nhalves; for as they have given us the songs they should have given us\nthe tunes, that we might sing them.\n\nThe books called the books of the Prophets fill up all the remaining\npart of the Bible; they are sixteen in number, beginning with Isaiah\nand ending with Malachi, of which I have given a list in the\nobservations upon Chronicles. Of these sixteen prophets, all of whom\nexcept the last three lived within the time the books of Kings and\nChronicles were written, two only, Isaiah and Jeremiah, are mentioned\nin the history of those books. I shall begin with those two, reserving,\nwhat I have to say on the general character of the men called prophets\nto another part of the work.\n\nWhoever will take the trouble of reading the book ascribed to Isaiah,\nwill find it one of the most wild and disorderly compositions ever put\ntogether; it has neither beginning, middle, nor end; and, except a\nshort historical part, and a few sketches of history in the first two\nor three chapters, is one continued incoherent, bombastical rant, full\nof extravagant metaphor, without application, and destitute of meaning;\na school-boy would scarcely have been excusable for writing such stuff;\nit is (at least in translation) that kind of composition and false\ntaste that is properly called prose run mad.\n\nThe historical part begins at chapter xxxvi., and is continued to the\nend of chapter xxxix. It relates some matters that are said to have\npassed during the reign of Hezekiah, king of Judah, at which time\nIsaiah lived. This fragment of history begins and ends abruptly; it has\nnot the least connection with the chapter that precedes it, nor with\nthat which follows it, nor with any other in the book. It is probable\nthat Isaiah wrote this fragment himself, because he was an actor in the\ncircumstances it treats of; but except this part there are scarcely two\nchapters that have any connection with each other. One is entitled, at\nthe beginning of the first verse, the burden of Babylon; another, the\nburden of Moab; another, the burden of Damascus; another, the burden of\nEgypt; another, the burden of the Desert of the Sea; another, the\nburden of the Valley of Vision: as you would say the story of the\nKnight of the Burning Mountain, the story of Cinderella, or the glassen\nslipper, the story of the Sleeping Beauty in the Wood, etc., etc.\n\nI have already shown, in the instance of the last two verses of 2\nChronicles, and the first three in Ezra, that the compilers of the\nBible mixed and confounded the writings of different authors with each\nother; which alone, were there no other cause, is sufficient to destroy\nthe authenticity of an compilation, because it is more than presumptive\nevidence that the compilers are ignorant who the authors were. A very\nglaring instance of this occurs in the book ascribed to Isaiah: the\nlatter part of the 44th chapter, and the beginning of the 45th, so far\nfrom having been written by Isaiah, could only have been written by\nsome person who lived at least an hundred and fifty years after Isaiah\nwas dead.\n\nThese chapters are a compliment to Cyrus, who permitted the Jews to\nreturn to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity, to rebuild Jerusalem\nand the temple, as is stated in Ezra. The last verse of the 44th\nchapter, and the beginning of the 45th [Isaiah] are in the following\nwords: \u201cThat saith of Cyrus, he is my shepherd, and shall perform all\nmy pleasure; even saying to Jerusalem, thou shalt be built; and to the\ntemple thy foundations shall be laid: thus saith the Lord to his\nenointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden to subdue nations\nbefore him, and I will loose the loins of kings to open before him the\ntwo-leaved gates, and the gates shall not be shut; I will go before\nthee,\u201d etc.\n\nWhat audacity of church and priestly ignorance it is to impose this\nbook upon the world as the writing of Isaiah, when Isaiah, according to\ntheir own chronology, died soon after the death of Hezekiah, which was\nB.C. 698; and the decree of Cyrus, in favour of the Jews returning to\nJerusalem, was, according to the same chronology, B.C. 536; which is a\ndistance of time between the two of 162 years. I do not suppose that\nthe compilers of the Bible made these books, but rather that they\npicked up some loose, anonymous essays, and put them together under the\nnames of such authors as best suited their purpose. They have\nencouraged the imposition, which is next to inventing it; for it was\nimpossible but they must have observed it.\n\nWhen we see the studied craft of the scripture-makers, in making every\npart of this romantic book of school-boy\u2019s eloquence bend to the\nmonstrous idea of a Son of God, begotten by a ghost on the body of a\nvirgin, there is no imposition we are not justified in suspecting them\nof. Every phrase and circumstance are marked with the barbarous hand of\nsuperstitious torture, and forced into meanings it was impossible they\ncould have. The head of every chapter, and the top of every page, are\nblazoned with the names of Christ and the Church, that the unwary\nreader might suck in the error before he began to read.\n\nBehold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son (Isa. vii. I4), has been\ninterpreted to mean the person called Jesus Christ, and his mother\nMary, and has been echoed through christendom for more than a thousand\nyears; and such has been the rage of this opinion, that scarcely a spot\nin it but has been stained with blood and marked with desolation in\nconsequence of it. Though it is not my intention to enter into\ncontroversy on subjects of this kind, but to confine myself to show\nthat the Bible is spurious,\u2014and thus, by taking away the foundation, to\noverthrow at once the whole structure of superstition raised thereon,\u2014I\nwill however stop a moment to expose the fallacious application of this\npassage.\n\nWhether Isaiah was playing a trick with Ahaz, king of Judah, to whom\nthis passage is spoken, is no business of mine; I mean only to show the\nmisapplication of the passage, and that it has no more reference to\nChrist and his mother, than it has to me and my mother. The story is\nsimply this:\n\nThe king of Syria and the king of Israel (I have already mentioned that\nthe Jews were split into two nations, one of which was called Judah,\nthe capital of which was Jerusalem, and the other Israel) made war\njointly against Ahaz, king of Judah, and marched their armies towards\nJerusalem. Ahaz and his people became alarmed, and the account says\n(Is. vii. 2), Their hearts were moved as the trees of the wood are\nmoved with the wind.\n\nIn this situation of things, Isaiah addresses himself to Ahaz, and\nassures him in the name of the Lord (the cant phrase of all the\nprophets) that these two kings should not succeed against him; and to\nsatisfy Ahaz that this should be the case, tells him to ask a sign.\nThis, the account says, Ahaz declined doing; giving as a reason that he\nwould not tempt the Lord; upon which Isaiah, who is the speaker, says,\nver. 14, \u201cTherefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold a\nvirgin shall conceive and bear a son;\u201d and the 16th verse says, \u201cAnd\nbefore this child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good,\nthe land which thou abhorrest or dreadest [meaning Syria and the\nkingdom of Israel] shall be forsaken of both her kings.\u201d Here then was\nthe sign, and the time limited for the completion of the assurance or\npromise; namely, before this child shall know to refuse the evil and\nchoose the good.\n\nIsaiah having committed himself thus far, it became necessary to him,\nin order to avoid the imputation of being a false prophet, and the\nconsequences thereof, to take measures to make this sign appear. It\ncertainly was not a difficult thing, in any time of the world, to find\na girl with child, or to make her so; and perhaps Isaiah knew of one\nbeforehand; for I do not suppose that the prophets of that day were any\nmore to be trusted than the priests of this: be that, however, as it\nmay, he says in the next chapter, ver. 2, \u201cAnd I took unto me faithful\nwitnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of\nJeberechiah, and I went unto the prophetess, and she conceived and bare\na son.\u201d\n\nHere then is the whole story, foolish as it is, of this child and this\nvirgin; and it is upon the barefaced perversion of this story that the\nbook of Matthew, and the impudence and sordid interest of priests in\nlater times, have founded a theory, which they call the gospel; and\nhave applied this story to signify the person they call Jesus Christ;\nbegotten, they say, by a ghost, whom they call holy, on the body of a\nwoman engaged in marriage, and afterwards married, whom they call a\nvirgin, seven hundred years after this foolish story was told; a theory\nwhich, speaking for myself, I hesitate not to believe, and to say, is\nas fabulous and as false as God is true. [In Is. vii. 14, it is said\nthat the child should be called Immanuel; but this name was not given\nto either of the children, otherwise than as a character, which the\nword signifies. That of the prophetess was called Maher-shalalhash-baz,\nand that of Mary was called Jesus.\u2014Author.]\n\nBut to show the imposition and falsehood of Isaiah we have only to\nattend to the sequel of this story; which, though it is passed over in\nsilence in the book of Isaiah, is related in 2 Chronicles, xxviii; and\nwhich is, that instead of these two kings failing in their attempt\nagainst Ahaz, king of Judah, as Isaiah had pretended to foretel in the\nname of the Lord, they succeeded: Ahaz was defeated and destroyed; an\nhundred and twenty thousand of his people were slaughtered; Jerusalem\nwas plundered, and two hundred thousand women and sons and daughters\ncarried into captivity. Thus much for this lying prophet and imposter\nIsaiah, and the book of falsehoods that bears his name. I pass on to\nthe book of Jeremiah. This prophet, as he is called, lived in the time\nthat Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, in the reign of Zedekiah, the\nlast king of Judah; and the suspicion was strong against him that he\nwas a traitor in the interest of Nebuchadnezzar. Every thing relating\nto Jeremiah shows him to have been a man of an equivocal character: in\nhis metaphor of the potter and the clay, (ch. xviii.) he guards his\nprognostications in such a crafty manner as always to leave himself a\ndoor to escape by, in case the event should be contrary to what he had\npredicted. In the 7th and 8th verses he makes the Almighty to say, \u201cAt\nwhat instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a\nkingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and destroy it, if that nation,\nagainst whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent me\nof the evil that I thought to do unto them.\u201d Here was a proviso against\none side of the case: now for the other side. Verses 9 and 10, \u201cAt what\ninstant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to\nbuild and to plant it, if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my\nvoice, then I will repent me of the good wherewith I said I would\nbenefit them.\u201d Here is a proviso against the other side; and, according\nto this plan of prophesying, a prophet could never be wrong, however\nmistaken the Almighty might be. This sort of absurd subterfuge, and\nthis manner of speaking of the Almighty, as one would speak of a man,\nis consistent with nothing but the stupidity of the Bible.\n\nAs to the authenticity of the book, it is only necessary to read it in\norder to decide positively that, though some passages recorded therein\nmay have been spoken by Jeremiah, he is not the author of the book. The\nhistorical parts, if they can be called by that name, are in the most\nconfused condition; the same events are several times repeated, and\nthat in a manner different, and sometimes in contradiction to each\nother; and this disorder runs even to the last chapter, where the\nhistory, upon which the greater part of the book has been employed,\nbegins anew, and ends abruptly. The book has all the appearance of\nbeing a medley of unconnected anecdotes respecting persons and things\nof that time, collected together in the same rude manner as if the\nvarious and contradictory accounts that are to be found in a bundle of\nnewspapers, respecting persons and things of the present day, were put\ntogether without date, order, or explanation. I will give two or three\nexamples of this kind.\n\nIt appears, from the account of chapter xxxvii. that the army of\nNebuchadnezzer, which is called the army of the Chaldeans, had besieged\nJerusalem some time; and on their hearing that the army of Pharaoh of\nEgypt was marching against them, they raised the siege and retreated\nfor a time. It may here be proper to mention, in order to understand\nthis confused history, that Nebuchadnezzar had besieged and taken\nJerusalem during the reign of Jehoakim, the redecessor of Zedekiah; and\nthat it was Nebuchadnezzar who had make Zedekiah king, or rather\nviceroy; and that this second siege, of which the book of Jeremiah\ntreats, was in consequence of the revolt of Zedekiah against\nNebuchadnezzar. This will in some measure account for the suspicion\nthat affixes itself to Jeremiah of being a traitor, and in the interest\nof Nebuchadnezzar,\u2014whom Jeremiah calls, xliii. 10, the servant of God.\n\nChapter xxxvii. 11-13, says, \u201cAnd it came to pass, that, when the army\nof the Chaldeans was broken up from Jerusalem, for fear of Pharaoh\u2019s\narmy, that Jeremiah went forth out of Jerusalem, to go (as this account\nstates) into the land of Benjamin, to separate himself thence in the\nmidst of the people; and when he was in the gate of Benjamin a captain\nof the ward was there, whose name was Irijah... and he took Jeremiah\nthe prophet, saying, Thou fallest away to the Chaldeans; then Jeremiah\nsaid, It is false; I fall not away to the Chaldeans.\u201d Jeremiah being\nthus stopt and accused, was, after being examined, committed to prison,\non suspicion of being a traitor, where he remained, as is stated in the\nlast verse of this chapter.\n\nBut the next chapter gives an account of the imprisonment of Jeremiah,\nwhich has no connection with this account, but ascribes his\nimprisonment to another circumstance, and for which we must go back to\nchapter xxi. It is there stated, ver. 1, that Zedekiah sent Pashur the\nson of Malchiah, and Zephaniah the son of Maaseiah the priest, to\nJeremiah, to enquire of him concerning Nebuchadnezzar, whose army was\nthen before Jerusalem; and Jeremiah said to them, ver. 8, \u201cThus saith\nthe Lord, Behold I set before you the way of life, and the way of\ndeath; he that abideth in this city shall die by the sword and by the\nfamine, and by the pestilence; but he that goeth out and falleth to the\nChaldeans that besiege you, he shall live, and his life shall be unto\nhim for a prey.\u201d\n\nThis interview and conference breaks off abruptly at the end of the\n10th verse of chapter xxi.; and such is the disorder of this book that\nwe have to pass over sixteen chapters upon various subjects, in order\nto come at the continuation and event of this conference; and this\nbrings us to the first verse of chapter xxxviii., as I have just\nmentioned. The chapter opens with saying, \u201cThen Shaphatiah, the son of\nMattan, Gedaliah the son of Pashur, and Jucal the son of Shelemiah, and\nPashur the son of Malchiah, (here are more persons mentioned than in\nchapter xxi.) heard the words that Jeremiah spoke unto all the people,\nsaying, Thus saith the Lord, He that remaineth in this city, shall die\nby the sword, by famine, and by the pestilence; but he that goeth forth\nto the Chaldeans shall live; for he shall have his life for a prey, and\nshall live\u201d; [which are the words of the conference;] therefore, (say\nthey to Zedekiah,) \u201cWe beseech thee, let this man be put to death, for\nthus he weakeneth the hands of the men of war that remain in this city,\nand the hands of all the people, in speaking such words unto them; for\nthis man seeketh not the welfare of the people, but the hurt:\u201d and at\nthe 6th verse it is said, \u201cThen they took Jeremiah, and put him into\nthe dungeon of Malchiah.\u201d\n\nThese two accounts are different and contradictory. The one ascribes\nhis imprisonment to his attempt to escape out of the city; the other to\nhis preaching and prophesying in the city; the one to his being seized\nby the guard at the gate; the other to his being accused before\nZedekiah by the conferees. [I observed two chapters in I Samuel (xvi.\nand xvii.) that contradict each other with respect to David, and the\nmanner he became acquainted with Saul; as Jeremiah xxxvii. and xxxviii.\ncontradict each other with respect to the cause of Jeremiah\u2019s\nimprisonment.\n\nIn 1 Samuel, xvi., it is said, that an evil spirit of God troubled\nSaul, and that his servants advised him (as a remedy) \u201cto seek out a\nman who was a cunning player upon the harp.\u201d And Saul said, ver. 17,\n\u201cProvide me now a man that can play well, and bring him to me. Then\nanswered one of his servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of\nJesse, the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty man,\nand a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the\nLord is with him; wherefore Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said,\nSend me David, thy son. And (verse 21) David came to Saul, and stood\nbefore him, and he loved him greatly, and he became his armour-bearer;\nand when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, (verse 23) David took\nhis harp, and played with his hand, and Saul was refreshed, and was\nwell.\u201d\n\nBut the next chapter (xvii.) gives an account, all different to this,\nof the manner that Saul and David became acquainted. Here it is\nascribed to David\u2019s encounter with Goliah, when David was sent by his\nfather to carry provision to his brethren in the camp. In the 55th\nverse of this chapter it is said, \u201cAnd when Saul saw David go forth\nagainst the Philistine (Goliah) he said to Abner, the captain of the\nhost, Abner, whose son is this youth? And Abner said, As thy soul\nliveth, 0 king, I cannot tell. And the king said, Enquire thou whose\nson the stripling is. And as David returned from the slaughter of the\nPhilistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul, with the head\nof the Philistine in his hand; and Saul said unto him, Whose son art\nthou, thou young man? And David answered, I am the son of thy servant,\nJesse, the Betblehemite,\u201d These two accounts belie each other, because\neach of them supposes Saul and David not to have known each other\nbefore. This book, the Bible, is too ridiculous for criticism.\u2014Author.]\n\nIn the next chapter (Jer. xxxix.) we have another instance of the\ndisordered state of this book; for notwithstanding the siege of the\ncity by Nebuchadnezzar has been the subject of several of the preceding\nchapters, particularly xxxvii. and xxxviii., chapter xxxix. begins as\nif not a word had been said upon the subject, and as if the reader was\nstill to be informed of every particular respecting it; for it begins\nwith saying, ver. 1, \u201cIn the ninth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in\nthe tenth month, came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and all his army,\nagainst Jerusalem, and besieged it,\u201d etc.\n\nBut the instance in the last chapter (lii.) is still more glaring; for\nthough the story has been told over and over again, this chapter still\nsupposes the reader not to know anything of it, for it begins by\nsaying, ver. i, \u201cZedekiah was one and twenty years old when he began to\nreign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem, and his mother\u2019s name\nwas Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah.\u201d (Ver. 4,) \u201cAnd it\ncame to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, that\nNebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he and all his army, against\nJerusalem, and pitched against it, and built forts against it,\u201d etc.\n\nIt is not possible that any one man, and more particularly Jeremiah,\ncould have been the writer of this book. The errors are such as could\nnot have been committed by any person sitting down to compose a work.\nWere I, or any other man, to write in such a disordered manner, no body\nwould read what was written, and every body would suppose that the\nwriter was in a state of insanity. The only way, therefore, to account\nfor the disorder is, that the book is a medley of detached\nunauthenticated anecdotes, put together by some stupid book-maker,\nunder the name of Jeremiah; because many of them refer to him, and to\nthe circumstances of the times he lived in.\n\nOf the duplicity, and of the false predictions of Jeremiah, I shall\nmention two instances, and then proceed to review the remainder of the\nBible.\n\nIt appears from chapter xxxviii. that when Jeremiah was in prison,\nZedekiah sent for him, and at this interview, which was private,\nJeremiah pressed it strongly on Zedekiah to surrender himself to the\nenemy. \u201cIf,\u201d says he, (ver. 17,) \u201cthou wilt assuredly go forth unto the\nking of Babylon\u2019s princes, then thy soul shall live,\u201d etc. Zedekiah was\napprehensive that what passed at this conference should be known; and\nhe said to Jeremiah, (ver. 25,) \u201cIf the princes [meaning those of\nJudah] hear that I have talked with thee, and they come unto thee, and\nsay unto thee, Declare unto us now what thou hast said unto the king;\nhide it not from us, and we will not put thee to death; and also what\nthe king said unto thee; then thou shalt say unto them, I presented my\nsupplication before the king that he would not cause me to return to\nJonathan\u2019s house, to die there. Then came all the princes unto\nJeremiah, and asked him, and \u201che told them according to all the words\nthe king had commanded.\u201d Thus, this man of God, as he is called, could\ntell a lie, or very strongly prevaricate, when he supposed it would\nanswer his purpose; for certainly he did not go to Zedekiah to make\nthis supplication, neither did he make it; he went because he was sent\nfor, and he employed that opportunity to advise Zedekiah to surrender\nhimself to Nebuchadnezzar.\n\nIn chapter xxxiv. 2-5, is a prophecy of Jeremiah to Zedekiah in these\nwords: \u201cThus saith the Lord, Behold I will give this city into the hand\nof the king of Babylon, and he will burn it with fire; and thou shalt\nnot escape out of his hand, but thou shalt surely be taken, and\ndelivered into his hand; and thine eyes shall behold the eyes of the\nking of Babylon, and he shall speak with thee mouth to mouth, and thou\nshalt go to Babylon. Yet hear the word of the Lord; O Zedekiah, king,\nof Judah, thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not die by the sword, but\nthou shalt die in Peace; and with the burnings of thy fathers, the\nformer kings that were before thee, so shall they burn odours for thee,\nand they will lament thee, saying, Ah, Lord! for I have pronounced the\nword, saith the Lord.\u201d\n\nNow, instead of Zedekiah beholding the eyes of the king of Babylon, and\nspeaking with him mouth to mouth, and dying in peace, and with the\nburning of odours, as at the funeral of his fathers, (as Jeremiah had\ndeclared the Lord himself had pronounced,) the reverse, according to\nchapter Iii., 10, 11 was the case; it is there said, that the king of\nBabylon slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes: then he put out the\neyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon,\nand put him in prison till the day of his death.\n\nWhat then can we say of these prophets, but that they are impostors and\nliars?\n\nAs for Jeremiah, he experienced none of those evils. He was taken into\nfavour by Nebuchadnezzar, who gave him in charge to the captain of the\nguard (xxxix, 12), \u201cTake him (said he) and look well to him, and do him\nno harm; but do unto him even as he shall say unto thee.\u201d Jeremiah\njoined himself afterwards to Nebuchadnezzar, and went about prophesying\nfor him against the Egyptians, who had marched to the relief of\nJerusalem while it was besieged. Thus much for another of the lying\nprophets, and the book that bears his name.\n\nI have been the more particular in treating of the books ascribed to\nIsaiah and Jeremiah, because those two are spoken of in the books of\nKings and Chronicles, which the others are not. The remainder of the\nbooks ascribed to the men called prophets I shall not trouble myself\nmuch about; but take them collectively into the observations I shall\noffer on the character of the men styled prophets.\n\nIn the former part of the \u2018Age of Reason,\u2019 I have said that the word\nprophet was the Bible-word for poet, and that the flights and metaphors\nof Jewish poets have been foolishly erected into what are now called\nprophecies. I am sufficiently justified in this opinion, not only\nbecause the books called the prophecies are written in poetical\nlanguage, but because there is no word in the Bible, except it be the\nword prophet, that describes what we mean by a poet. I have also said,\nthat the word signified a performer upon musical instruments, of which\nI have given some instances; such as that of a company of prophets,\nprophesying with psalteries, with tabrets, with pipes, with harps,\netc., and that Saul prophesied with them, 1 Sam. x., 5. It appears from\nthis passage, and from other parts in the book of Samuel, that the word\nprophet was confined to signify poetry and music; for the person who\nwas supposed to have a visionary insight into concealed things, was not\na prophet but a seer, [I know not what is the Hebrew word that\ncorresponds to the word seer in English; but I observe it is translated\ninto French by Le Voyant, from the verb voir to see, and which means\nthe person who sees, or the seer.\u2014Author.]\n\n[The Hebrew word for Seer, in 1 Samuel ix., transliterated, is chozeh,\nthe gazer, it is translated in Is. xlvii. 13, \u201cthe\nstargazers.\u201d\u2014Editor.] (i Sam, ix. 9;) and it was not till after the\nword seer went out of use (which most probably was when Saul banished\nthose he called wizards) that the profession of the seer, or the art of\nseeing, became incorporated into the word prophet.\n\nAccording to the modern meaning of the word prophet and prophesying, it\nsignifies foretelling events to a great distance of time; and it became\nnecessary to the inventors of the gospel to give it this latitude of\nmeaning, in order to apply or to stretch what they call the prophecies\nof the Old Testament, to the times of the New. But according to the Old\nTestament, the prophesying of the seer, and afterwards of the prophet,\nso far as the meaning of the word \u201cseer\u201d was incorporated into that of\nprophet, had reference only to things of the time then passing, or very\nclosely connected with it; such as the event of a battle they were\ngoing to engage in, or of a journey, or of any enterprise they were\ngoing to undertake, or of any circumstance then pending, or of any\ndifficulty they were then in; all of which had immediate reference to\nthemselves (as in the case already mentioned of Ahaz and Isaiah with\nrespect to the expression, Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a\nson,) and not to any distant future time. It was that kind of\nprophesying that corresponds to what we call fortune-telling; such as\ncasting nativities, predicting riches, fortunate or unfortunate\nmarriages, conjuring for lost goods, etc.; and it is the fraud of the\nChristian church, not that of the Jews, and the ignorance and the\nsuperstition of modern, not that of ancient times, that elevated those\npoetical, musical, conjuring, dreaming, strolling gentry, into the rank\nthey have since had.\n\nBut, besides this general character of all the prophets, they had also\na particular character. They were in parties, and they prophesied for\nor against, according to the party they were with; as the poetical and\npolitical writers of the present day write in defence of the party they\nassociate with against the other.\n\nAfter the Jews were divided into two nations, that of Judah and that of\nIsrael, each party had its prophets, who abused and accused each other\nof being false prophets, lying prophets, impostors, etc.\n\nThe prophets of the party of Judah prophesied against the prophets of\nthe party of Israel; and those of the party of Israel against those of\nJudah. This party prophesying showed itself immediately on the\nseparation under the first two rival kings, Rehoboam and Jeroboam. The\nprophet that cursed, or prophesied against the altar that Jeroboam had\nbuilt in Bethel, was of the party of Judah, where Rehoboam was king;\nand he was way-laid on his return home by a prophet of the party of\nIsrael, who said unto him (i Kings xiii.) \u201cArt thou the man of God that\ncame from Judah? and he said, I am.\u201d Then the prophet of the party of\nIsrael said to him \u201cI am a prophet also, as thou art, [signifying of\nJudah,] and an angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, saying,\nBring him back with thee unto thine house, that he may eat bread and\ndrink water; but (says the 18th verse) he lied unto him.\u201d The event,\nhowever, according to the story, is, that the prophet of Judah never\ngot back to Judah; for he was found dead on the road by the contrivance\nof the prophet of Israel, who no doubt was called a true prophet by his\nown party, and the prophet of Judah a lying prophet.\n\nIn 2 Kings, iii., a story is related of prophesying or conjuring that\nshews, in several particulars, the character of a prophet. Jehoshaphat\nking of Judah, and Joram king of Israel, had for a while ceased their\nparty animosity, and entered into an alliance; and these two, together\nwith the king of Edom, engaged in a war against the king of Moab. After\nuniting and marching their armies, the story says, they were in great\ndistress for water, upon which Jehoshaphat said, \u201cIs there not here a\nprophet of the Lord, that we may enquire of the Lord by him? and one of\nthe servants of the king of Israel said here is Elisha. [Elisha was of\nthe party of Judah.] And Jehoshaphat the king of Judah said, The word\nof the Lord is with him.\u201d The story then says, that these three kings\nwent down to Elisha; and when Elisha [who, as I have said, was a\nJudahmite prophet] saw the King of Israel, he said unto him, \u201cWhat have\nI to do with thee, get thee to the prophets of thy father and the\nprophets of thy mother. Nay but, said the king of Israel, the Lord hath\ncalled these three kings together, to deliver them into the hands of\nthe king of Moab,\u201d (meaning because of the distress they were in for\nwater;) upon which Elisha said, \u201cAs the Lord of hosts liveth before\nwhom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of\nJehoshaphat, king of Judah, I would not look towards thee nor see\nthee.\u201d Here is all the venom and vulgarity of a party prophet. We are\nnow to see the performance, or manner of prophesying.\n\nVer. 15. \u201c\u2018Bring me,\u2019 (said Elisha), \u2018a minstrel\u2019; and it came to pass,\nwhen the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him.\u201d\nHere is the farce of the conjurer. Now for the prophecy: \u201cAnd Elisha\nsaid, [singing most probably to the tune he was playing], Thus saith\nthe Lord, Make this valley full of ditches;\u201d which was just telling\nthem what every countryman could have told them without either fiddle\nor farce, that the way to get water was to dig for it.\n\nBut as every conjuror is not famous alike for the same thing, so\nneither were those prophets; for though all of them, at least those I\nhave spoken of, were famous for lying, some of them excelled in\ncursing. Elisha, whom I have just mentioned, was a chief in this branch\nof prophesying; it was he that cursed the forty-two children in the\nname of the Lord, whom the two she-bears came and devoured. We are to\nsuppose that those children were of the party of Israel; but as those\nwho will curse will lie, there is just as much credit to be given to\nthis story of Elisha\u2019s two she-bears as there is to that of the Dragon\nof Wantley, of whom it is said:\n\n    Poor children three devoured be,\n    That could not with him grapple;\n    And at one sup he eat them up,\n    As a man would eat an apple.\n\nThere was another description of men called prophets, that amused\nthemselves with dreams and visions; but whether by night or by day we\nknow not. These, if they were not quite harmless, were but little\nmischievous. Of this class are,\n\nEZEKIEL and DANIEL; and the first question upon these books, as upon\nall the others, is, Are they genuine? that is, were they written by\nEzekiel and Daniel?\n\nOf this there is no proof; but so far as my own opinion goes, I am more\ninclined to believe they were, than that they were not. My reasons for\nthis opinion are as follows: First, Because those books do not contain\ninternal evidence to prove they were not written by Ezekiel and Daniel,\nas the books ascribed to Moses, Joshua, Samuel, etc., prove they were\nnot written by Moses, Joshua, Samuel, etc.\n\nSecondly, Because they were not written till after the Babylonish\ncaptivity began; and there is good reason to believe that not any book\nin the bible was written before that period; at least it is proveable,\nfrom the books themselves, as I have already shown, that they were not\nwritten till after the commencement of the Jewish monarchy.\n\nThirdly, Because the manner in which the books ascribed to Ezekiel and\nDaniel are written, agrees with the condition these men were in at the\ntime of writing them.\n\nHad the numerous commentators and priests, who have foolishly employed\nor wasted their time in pretending to expound and unriddle those books,\nbeen carred into captivity, as Ezekiel and Daniel were, it would\ngreatly have improved their intellects in comprehending the reason for\nthis mode of writing, and have saved them the trouble of racking their\ninvention, as they have done to no purpose; for they would have found\nthat themselves would be obliged to write whatever they had to write,\nrespecting their own affairs, or those of their friends, or of their\ncountry, in a concealed manner, as those men have done.\n\nThese two books differ from all the rest; for it is only these that are\nfilled with accounts of dreams and visions: and this difference arose\nfrom the situation the writers were in as prisoners of war, or\nprisoners of state, in a foreign country, which obliged them to convey\neven the most trifling information to each other, and all their\npolitical projects or opinions, in obscure and metaphorical terms. They\npretend to have dreamed dreams, and seen visions, because it was unsafe\nfor them to speak facts or plain language. We ought, however, to\nsuppose, that the persons to whom they wrote understood what they\nmeant, and that it was not intended anybody else should. But these busy\ncommentators and priests have been puzzling their wits to find out what\nit was not intended they should know, and with which they have nothing\nto do.\n\nEzekiel and Daniel were carried prisoners to Babylon, under the first\ncaptivity, in the time of Jehoiakim, nine years before the second\ncaptivity in the time of Zedekiah. The Jews were then still numerous,\nand had considerable force at Jerusalem; and as it is natural to\nsuppose that men in the situation of Ezekiel and Daniel would be\nmeditating the recovery of their country, and their own deliverance, it\nis reasonable to suppose that the accounts of dreams and visions with\nwhich these books are filled, are no other than a disguised mode of\ncorrespondence to facilitate those objects: it served them as a cypher,\nor secret alphabet. If they are not this, they are tales, reveries, and\nnonsense; or at least a fanciful way of wearing off the wearisomeness\nof captivity; but the presumption is, they are the former.\n\nEzekiel begins his book by speaking of a vision of cherubims, and of a\nwheel within a wheel, which he says he saw by the river Chebar, in the\nland of his captivity. Is it not reasonable to suppose that by the\ncherubims he meant the temple at Jerusalem, where they had figures of\ncherubims? and by a wheel within a wheel (which as a figure has always\nbeen understood to signify political contrivance) the project or means\nof recovering Jerusalem? In the latter part of his book he supposes\nhimself transported to Jerusalem, and into the temple; and he refers\nback to the vision on the river Chebar, and says, (xliii- 3,) that this\nlast vision was like the vision on the river Chebar; which indicates\nthat those pretended dreams and visions had for their object the\nrecovery of Jerusalem, and nothing further.\n\nAs to the romantic interpretations and applications, wild as the dreams\nand visions they undertake to explain, which commentators and priests\nhave made of those books, that of converting them into things which\nthey call prophecies, and making them bend to times and circumstances\nas far remote even as the present day, it shows the fraud or the\nextreme folly to which credulity or priestcraft can go.\n\nScarcely anything can be more absurd than to suppose that men situated\nas Ezekiel and Daniel were, whose country was over-run, and in the\npossession of the enemy, all their friends and relations in captivity\nabroad, or in slavery at home, or massacred, or in continual danger of\nit; scarcely any thing, I say, can be more absurd than to suppose that\nsuch men should find nothing to do but that of employing their time and\ntheir thoughts about what was to happen to other nations a thousand or\ntwo thousand years after they were dead; at the same time nothing more\nnatural than that they should meditate the recovery of Jerusalem, and\ntheir own deliverance; and that this was the sole object of all the\nobscure and apparently frantic writing contained in those books.\n\nIn this sense the mode of writing used in those two books being forced\nby necessity, and not adopted by choice, is not irrational; but, if we\nare to use the books as prophecies, they are false. In Ezekiel xxix.\n11., speaking of Egypt, it is said, \u201cNo foot of man shall pass through\nit, nor foot of beast pass through it; neither shall it be inhabited\nfor forty years.\u201d This is what never came to pass, and consequently it\nis false, as all the books I have already reviewed are.\u2014I here close\nthis part of the subject.\n\nIn the former part of \u2018The Age of Reason\u2019 I have spoken of Jonah, and\nof the story of him and the whale.\u2014A fit story for ridicule, if it was\nwritten to be believed; or of laughter, if it was intended to try what\ncredulity could swallow; for, if it could swallow Jonah and the whale\nit could swallow anything.\n\nBut, as is already shown in the observations on the book of Job and of\nProverbs, it is not always certain which of the books in the Bible are\noriginally Hebrew, or only translations from the books of the Gentiles\ninto Hebrew; and, as the book of Jonah, so far from treating of the\naffairs of the Jews, says nothing upon that subject, but treats\naltogether of the Gentiles, it is more probable that it is a book of\nthe Gentiles than of the Jews, [I have read in an ancient Persian poem\n(Saadi, I believe, but have mislaid the reference) this phrase: \u201cAnd\nnow the whale swallowed Jonah: the sun set.\u201d\u2014Editor.] and that it has\nbeen written as a fable to expose the nonsense, and satyrize the\nvicious and malignant character, of a Bible-prophet, or a predicting\npriest.\n\nJonah is represented, first as a disobedient prophet, running away from\nhis mission, and taking shelter aboard a vessel of the Gentiles, bound\nfrom Joppa to Tarshish; as if he ignorantly supposed, by such a paltry\ncontrivance, he could hide himself where God could not find him. The\nvessel is overtaken by a storm at sea; and the mariners, all of whom\nare Gentiles, believing it to be a judgement on account of some one on\nboard who had committed a crime, agreed to cast lots to discover the\noffender; and the lot fell upon Jonah. But before this they had cast\nall their wares and merchandise over-board to lighten the vessel, while\nJonah, like a stupid fellow, was fast asleep in the hold.\n\nAfter the lot had designated Jonah to be the offender, they questioned\nhim to know who and what he was? and he told them he was an Hebrew; and\nthe story implies that he confessed himself to be guilty. But these\nGentiles, instead of sacrificing him at once without pity or mercy, as\na company of Bible-prophets or priests would have done by a Gentile in\nthe same case, and as it is related Samuel had done by Agag, and Moses\nby the women and children, they endeavoured to save him, though at the\nrisk of their own lives: for the account says, \u201cNevertheless [that is,\nthough Jonah was a Jew and a foreigner, and the cause of all their\nmisfortunes, and the loss of their cargo] the men rowed hard to bring\nthe boat to land, but they could not, for the sea wrought and was\ntempestuous against them.\u201d Still however they were unwilling to put the\nfate of the lot into execution; and they cried, says the account, unto\nthe Lord, saying, \u201cWe beseech thee, O Lord, let us not perish for this\nman\u2019s life, and lay not upon us innocent blood; for thou, O Lord, hast\ndone as it pleased thee.\u201d Meaning thereby, that they did not presume to\njudge Jonah guilty, since that he might be innocent; but that they\nconsidered the lot that had fallen upon him as a decree of God, or as\nit pleased God. The address of this prayer shows that the Gentiles\nworshipped one Supreme Being, and that they were not idolaters as the\nJews represented them to be. But the storm still continuing, and the\ndanger encreasing, they put the fate of the lot into execution, and\ncast Jonah in the sea; where, according to the story, a great fish\nswallowed him up whole and alive!\n\nWe have now to consider Jonah securely housed from the storm in the\nfish\u2019s belly. Here we are told that he prayed; but the prayer is a\nmade-up prayer, taken from various parts of the Psalms, without\nconnection or consistency, and adapted to the distress, but not at all\nto the condition that Jonah was in. It is such a prayer as a Gentile,\nwho might know something of the Psalms, could copy out for him. This\ncircumstance alone, were there no other, is sufficient to indicate that\nthe whole is a made-up story. The prayer, however, is supposed to have\nanswered the purpose, and the story goes on, (taking-off at the same\ntime the cant language of a Bible-prophet,) saying, \u201cThe Lord spake\nunto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon dry land.\u201d\n\nJonah then received a second mission to Nineveh, with which he sets\nout; and we have now to consider him as a preacher. The distress he is\nrepresented to have suffered, the remembrance of his own disobedience\nas the cause of it, and the miraculous escape he is supposed to have\nhad, were sufficient, one would conceive, to have impressed him with\nsympathy and benevolence in the execution of his mission; but, instead\nof this, he enters the city with denunciation and malediction in his\nmouth, crying, \u201cYet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.\u201d\n\nWe have now to consider this supposed missionary in the last act of his\nmission; and here it is that the malevolent spirit of a Bible-prophet,\nor of a predicting priest, appears in all that blackness of character\nthat men ascribe to the being they call the devil.\n\nHaving published his predictions, he withdrew, says the story, to the\neast side of the city.\u2014But for what? not to contemplate in retirement\nthe mercy of his Creator to himself or to others, but to wait, with\nmalignant impatience, the destruction of Nineveh. It came to pass,\nhowever, as the story relates, that the Ninevites reformed, and that\nGod, according to the Bible phrase, repented him of the evil he had\nsaid he would do unto them, and did it not. This, saith the first verse\nof the last chapter, displeased Jonah exceedingly and he was very\nangry. His obdurate heart would rather that all Nineveh should be\ndestroyed, and every soul, young and old, perish in its ruins, than\nthat his prediction should not be fulfilled. To expose the character of\na prophet still more, a gourd is made to grow up in the night, that\npromises him an agreeable shelter from the heat of the sun, in the\nplace to which he is retired; and the next morning it dies.\n\nHere the rage of the prophet becomes excessive, and he is ready to\ndestroy himself. \u201cIt is better, said he, for me to die than to live.\u201d\nThis brings on a supposed expostulation between the Almighty and the\nprophet; in which the former says, \u201cDoest thou well to be angry for the\ngourd? And Jonah said, I do well to be angry even unto death. Then said\nthe Lord, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for which thou hast not\nlaboured, neither madest it to grow, which came up in a night, and\nperished in a night; and should not I spare Nineveh, that great city,\nin which are more than threescore thousand persons, that cannot discern\nbetween their right hand and their left?\u201d\n\nHere is both the winding up of the satire, and the moral of the fable.\nAs a satire, it strikes against the character of all the\nBible-prophets, and against all the indiscriminate judgements upon men,\nwomen and children, with which this lying book, the bible, is crowded;\nsuch as Noah\u2019s flood, the destruction of the cities of Sodom and\nGomorrah, the extirpation of the Canaanites, even to suckling infants,\nand women with child; because the same reflection \u2018that there are more\nthan threescore thousand persons that cannot discern between their\nright hand and their left,\u2019 meaning young children, applies to all\ntheir cases. It satirizes also the supposed partiality of the Creator\nfor one nation more than for another.\n\nAs a moral, it preaches against the malevolent spirit of prediction;\nfor as certainly as a man predicts ill, he becomes inclined to wish it.\nThe pride of having his judgment right hardens his heart, till at last\nhe beholds with satisfaction, or sees with disappointment, the\naccomplishment or the failure of his predictions.\u2014This book ends with\nthe same kind of strong and well-directed point against prophets,\nprophecies and indiscriminate judgements, as the chapter that Benjamin\nFranklin made for the Bible, about Abraham and the stranger, ends\nagainst the intolerant spirit of religious persecutions\u2014Thus much for\nthe book Jonah. [The story of Abraham and the Fire-worshipper, ascribed\nto Franklin, is from Saadi. (See my \u201cSacred Anthology,\u201d p. 61.) Paine\nhas often been called a \u201cmere scoffer,\u201d but he seems to have been among\nthe first to treat with dignity the book of Jonah, so especially liable\nto the ridicule of superficial readers, and discern in it the highest\nconception of Deity known to the Old Testament.\u2014Editor.]\n\nOf the poetical parts of the Bible, that are called prophecies, I have\nspoken in the former part of \u2018The Age of Reason,\u2019 and already in this,\nwhere I have said that the word for prophet is the Bible-word for Poet,\nand that the flights and metaphors of those poets, many of which have\nbecome obscure by the lapse of time and the change of circumstances,\nhave been ridiculously erected into things called prophecies, and\napplied to purposes the writers never thought of. When a priest quotes\nany of those passages, he unriddles it agreeably to his own views, and\nimposes that explanation upon his congregation as the meaning of the\nwriter. The whore of Babylon has been the common whore of all the\npriests, and each has accused the other of keeping the strumpet; so\nwell do they agree in their explanations.\n\nThere now remain only a few books, which they call books of the lesser\nprophets; and as I have already shown that the greater are impostors,\nit would be cowardice to disturb the repose of the little ones. Let\nthem sleep, then, in the arms of their nurses, the priests, and both be\nforgotten together.\n\nI have now gone through the Bible, as a man would go through a wood\nwith an axe on his shoulder, and fell trees. Here they lie; and the\npriests, if they can, may replant them. They may, perhaps, stick them\nin the ground, but they will never make them grow.\u2014I pass on to the\nbooks of the New Testament.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\nTHE NEW TESTAMENT\n\n\nThe New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon the prophecies of the\nOld; if so, it must follow the fate of its foundation.\n\nAs it is nothing extraordinary that a woman should be with child before\nshe was married, and that the son she might bring forth should be\nexecuted, even unjustly, I see no reason for not believing that such a\nwoman as Mary, and such a man as Joseph, and Jesus, existed; their mere\nexistence is a matter of indifference, about which there is no ground\neither to believe or to disbelieve, and which comes under the common\nhead of, It may be so, and what then? The probability however is that\nthere were such persons, or at least such as resembled them in part of\nthe circumstances, because almost all romantic stories have been\nsuggested by some actual circumstance; as the adventures of Robinson\nCrusoe, not a word of which is true, were suggested by the case of\nAlexander Selkirk.\n\nIt is not then the existence or the non-existence, of the persons that\nI trouble myself about; it is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the\nNew Testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon,\nagainst which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is\nblasphemously obscene. It gives an account of a young woman engaged to\nbe married, and while under this engagement, she is, to speak plain\nlanguage, debauched by a ghost, under the impious pretence, (Luke i.\n35,) that \u201cthe Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the\nHighest shall overshadow thee.\u201d Notwithstanding which, Joseph\nafterwards marries her, cohabits with her as his wife, and in his turn\nrivals the ghost. This is putting the story into intelligible language,\nand when told in this manner, there is not a priest but must be ashamed\nto own it. [Mary, the supposed virgin, mother of Jesus, had several\nother children, sons and daughters. See Matt. xiii. 55, 56.\u2014Author.]\n\nObscenity in matters of faith, however wrapped up, is always a token of\nfable and imposture; for it is necessary to our serious belief in God,\nthat we do not connect it with stories that run, as this does, into\nludicrous interpretations. This story is, upon the face of it, the same\nkind of story as that of Jupiter and Leda, or Jupiter and Europa, or\nany of the amorous adventures of Jupiter; and shews, as is already\nstated in the former part of \u2018The Age of Reason,\u2019 that the Christian\nfaith is built upon the heathen Mythology.\n\nAs the historical parts of the New Testament, so far as concerns Jesus\nChrist, are confined to a very short space of time, less than two\nyears, and all within the same country, and nearly to the same spot,\nthe discordance of time, place, and circumstance, which detects the\nfallacy of the books of the Old Testament, and proves them to be\nimpositions, cannot be expected to be found here in the same abundance.\nThe New Testament compared with the Old, is like a farce of one act, in\nwhich there is not room for very numerous violations of the unities.\nThere are, however, some glaring contradictions, which, exclusive of\nthe fallacy of the pretended prophecies, are sufficient to show the\nstory of Jesus Christ to be false.\n\nI lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted, first, that\nthe agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to\nbe true, because the parts may agree, and the whole may be false;\nsecondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the\nwhole cannot be true. The agreement does not prove truth, but the\ndisagreement proves falsehood positively.\n\nThe history of Jesus Christ is contained in the four books ascribed to\nMatthew, Mark, Luke, and John.\u2014The first chapter of Matthew begins with\ngiving a genealogy of Jesus Christ; and in the third chapter of Luke\nthere is also given a genealogy of Jesus Christ. Did these two agree,\nit would not prove the genealogy to be true, because it might\nnevertheless be a fabrication; but as they contradict each other in\nevery particular, it proves falsehood absolutely. If Matthew speaks\ntruth, Luke speaks falsehood; and if Luke speaks truth, Matthew speaks\nfalsehood: and as there is no authority for believing one more than the\nother, there is no authority for believing either; and if they cannot\nbe believed even in the very first thing they say, and set out to\nprove, they are not entitled to be believed in any thing they say\nafterwards. Truth is an uniform thing; and as to inspiration and\nrevelation, were we to admit it, it is impossible to suppose it can be\ncontradictory. Either then the men called apostles were imposters, or\nthe books ascribed to them have been written by other persons, and\nfathered upon them, as is the case in the Old Testament.\n\nThe book of Matthew gives (i. 6), a genealogy by name from David, up,\nthrough Joseph, the husband of Mary, to Christ; and makes there to be\ntwent eight generations. The book of Luke gives also a genealogy by\nname from Christ, through Joseph the husband of Mary, down to David,\nand makes there to be forty-three generations; besides which, there is\nonly the two names of David and Joseph that are alike in the two\nlists.\u2014I here insert both genealogical lists, and for the sake of\nperspicuity and comparison, have placed them both in the same\ndirection, that is, from Joseph down to David.\n\n\n   Genealogy, according to            Genealogy, according to\n        Matthew.                                Luke.\n\n        Christ                                  Christ\n      2 Joseph                                2 Joseph\n      3 Jacob                                 3 Heli\n      4 Matthan                               4 Matthat\n      5 Eleazer                               5 Levi\n      6 Eliud                                 6 Melchl\n      7 Achim                                 7 Janna\n      8 Sadoc                                 8 Joseph\n      9 Azor                                  9 Mattathias\n     10 Eliakim                              10 Amos\n     11 Abiud                                11 Naum\n     12 Zorobabel                            12 Esli\n     13 Salathiel                            13 Nagge\n     14 Jechonias                            14 Maath\n     15 Josias                               15 Mattathias\n     16 Amon                                 16 Semei\n     17 Manasses                             17 Joseph\n     18 Ezekias                              18 Juda\n     19 Achaz                                19 Joanna\n     20 Joatham                              20 Rhesa\n     21 Ozias                                21 Zorobabel\n     22 Joram                                22 Salathiel\n     23 Josaphat                             23 Neri\n     24 Asa                                  24 Melchi\n     25 Abia                                 25 Addi\n     26 Roboam                               26 Cosam\n     27 Solomon                              27 Elmodam\n     28 David *                              28 Er\n                                             29 Jose\n                                             30 Eliezer\n                                             31 Jorim\n                                             32 Matthat\n                                             33 Levi\n                                             34 Simeon\n                                             35 Juda\n                                             36 Joseph\n                                             37 Jonan\n                                             38 Eliakim\n                                             39 Melea\n                                             40 Menan\n                                             41 Mattatha\n                                             42 Nathan\n                                             43 David\n\n\n[NOTE: * From the birth of David to the birth of Christ is upwards of\n1080 years; and as the life-time of Christ is not included, there are\nbut 27 full generations. To find therefore the average age of each\nperson mentioned in the list, at the time his first son was born, it is\nonly necessary to divide 1080 by 27, which gives 40 years for each\nperson. As the life-time of man was then but of the same extent it is\nnow, it is an absurdity to suppose, that 27 following generations\nshould all be old bachelors, before they married; and the more so, when\nwe are told that Solomon, the next in succession to David, had a house\nfull of wives and mistresses before he was twenty-one years of age. So\nfar from this genealogy being a solemn truth, it is not even a\nreasonable lie. The list of Luke gives about twenty-six years for the\naverage age, and this is too much.\u2014Author.]\n\nNow, if these men, Matthew and Luke, set out with a falsehood between\nthem (as these two accounts show they do) in the very commencement of\ntheir history of Jesus Christ, and of who, and of what he was, what\nauthority (as I have before asked) is there left for believing the\nstrange things they tell us afterwards? If they cannot be believed in\ntheir account of his natural genealogy, how are we to believe them when\nthey tell us he was the son of God, begotten by a ghost; and that an\nangel announced this in secret to his mother? If they lied in one\ngenealogy, why are we to believe them in the other? If his natural\ngenealogy be manufactured, which it certainly is, why are we not to\nsuppose that his celestial genealogy is manufactured also, and that the\nwhole is fabulous? Can any man of serious reflection hazard his future\nhappiness upon the belief of a story naturally impossible, repugnant to\nevery idea of decency, and related by persons already detected of\nfalsehood? Is it not more safe that we stop ourselves at the plain,\npure, and unmixed belief of one God, which is deism, than that we\ncommit ourselves on an ocean of improbable, irrational, indecent, and\ncontradictory tales?\n\nThe first question, however, upon the books of the New Testament, as\nupon those of the Old, is, Are they genuine? were they written by the\npersons to whom they are ascribed? For it is upon this ground only that\nthe strange things related therein have been credited. Upon this point,\nthere is no direct proof for or against; and all that this state of a\ncase proves is doubtfulness; and doubtfulness is the opposite of\nbelief. The state, therefore, that the books are in, proves against\nthemselves as far as this kind of proof can go.\n\nBut, exclusive of this, the presumption is that the books called the\nEvangelists, and ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were not\nwritten by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and that they are\nimpositions. The disordered state of the history in these four books,\nthe silence of one book upon matters related in the other, and the\ndisagreement that is to be found among them, implies that they are the\nproductions of some unconnected individuals, many years after the\nthings they pretend to relate, each of whom made his own legend; and\nnot the writings of men living intimately together, as the men called\napostles are supposed to have done: in fine, that they have been\nmanufactured, as the books of the Old Testament have been, by other\npersons than those whose names they bear.\n\nThe story of the angel announcing what the church calls the immaculate\nconception, is not so much as mentioned in the books ascribed to Mark,\nand John; and is differently related in Matthew and Luke. The former\nsays the angel, appeared to Joseph; the latter says, it was to Mary;\nbut either Joseph or Mary was the worst evidence that could have been\nthought of; for it was others that should have testified for them, and\nnot they for themselves. Were any girl that is now with child to say,\nand even to swear it, that she was gotten with child by a ghost, and\nthat an angel told her so, would she be believed? Certainly she would\nnot. Why then are we to believe the same thing of another girl whom we\nnever saw, told by nobody knows who, nor when, nor where? How strange\nand inconsistent is it, that the same circumstance that would weaken\nthe belief even of a probable story, should be given as a motive for\nbelieving this one, that has upon the face of it every token of\nabsolute impossibility and imposture.\n\nThe story of Herod destroying all the children under two years old,\nbelongs altogether to the book of Matthew; not one of the rest mentions\nanything about it. Had such a circumstance been true, the universality\nof it must have made it known to all the writers, and the thing would\nhave been too striking to have been omitted by any. This writer tell\nus, that Jesus escaped this slaughter, because Joseph and Mary were\nwarned by an angel to flee with him into Egypt; but he forgot to make\nprovision for John [the Baptist], who was then under two years of age.\nJohn, however, who staid behind, fared as well as Jesus, who fled; and\ntherefore the story circumstantially belies itself.\n\nNot any two of these writers agree in reciting, exactly in the same\nwords, the written inscription, short as it is, which they tell us was\nput over Christ when he was crucified; and besides this, Mark says, He\nwas crucified at the third hour, (nine in the morning;) and John says\nit was the sixth hour, (twelve at noon.) [According to John, (xix. 14)\nthe sentence was not passed till about the sixth hour (noon,) and\nconsequently the execution could not be till the afternoon; but Mark\n(xv. 25) Says expressly that he was crucified at the third hour, (nine\nin the morning,)\u2014Author.]\n\nThe inscription is thus stated in those books:\n\nMatthew\u2014This is Jesus the king of the Jews. Mark\u2014The king of the Jews.\nLuke\u2014This is the king of the Jews. John\u2014Jesus of Nazareth the king of\nthe Jews.\n\nWe may infer from these circumstances, trivial as they are, that those\nwriters, whoever they were, and in whatever time they lived, were not\npresent at the scene. The only one of the men called apostles who\nappears to have been near to the spot was Peter, and when he was\naccused of being one of Jesus\u2019s followers, it is said, (Matthew xxvi.\n74,) \u201cThen Peter began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the\nman:\u201d yet we are now called to believe the same Peter, convicted, by\ntheir own account, of perjury. For what reason, or on what authority,\nshould we do this?\n\nThe accounts that are given of the circumstances, that they tell us\nattended the crucifixion, are differently related in those four books.\n\nThe book ascribed to Matthew says \u2018there was darkness over all the land\nfrom the sixth hour unto the ninth hour\u2014that the veil of the temple was\nrent in twain from the top to the bottom\u2014that there was an\nearthquake\u2014that the rocks rent\u2014that the graves opened, that the bodies\nof many of the saints that slept arose and came out of their graves\nafter the resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared unto\nmany.\u2019 Such is the account which this dashing writer of the book of\nMatthew gives, but in which he is not supported by the writers of the\nother books.\n\nThe writer of the book ascribed to Mark, in detailing the circumstances\nof the crucifixion, makes no mention of any earthquake, nor of the\nrocks rending, nor of the graves opening, nor of the dead men walking\nout. The writer of the book of Luke is silent also upon the same\npoints. And as to the writer of the book of John, though he details all\nthe circumstances of the crucifixion down to the burial of Christ, he\nsays nothing about either the darkness\u2014the veil of the temple\u2014the\nearthquake\u2014the rocks\u2014the graves\u2014nor the dead men.\n\nNow if it had been true that these things had happened, and if the\nwriters of these books had lived at the time they did happen, and had\nbeen the persons they are said to be\u2014namely, the four men called\napostles, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,\u2014it was not possible for them,\nas true historians, even without the aid of inspiration, not to have\nrecorded them. The things, supposing them to have been facts, were of\ntoo much notoriety not to have been known, and of too much importance\nnot to have been told. All these supposed apostles must have been\nwitnesses of the earthquake, if there had been any, for it was not\npossible for them to have been absent from it: the opening of the\ngraves and resurrection of the dead men, and their walking about the\ncity, is of still greater importance than the earthquake. An earthquake\nis always possible, and natural, and proves nothing; but this opening\nof the graves is supernatural, and directly in point to their doctrine,\ntheir cause, and their apostleship. Had it been true, it would have\nfilled up whole chapters of those books, and been the chosen theme and\ngeneral chorus of all the writers; but instead of this, little and\ntrivial things, and mere prattling conversation of \u2018he said this and\nshe said that\u2019 are often tediously detailed, while this most important\nof all, had it been true, is passed off in a slovenly manner by a\nsingle dash of the pen, and that by one writer only, and not so much as\nhinted at by the rest.\n\nIt is an easy thing to tell a lie, but it is difficult to support the\nlie after it is told. The writer of the book of Matthew should have\ntold us who the saints were that came to life again, and went into the\ncity, and what became of them afterwards, and who it was that saw them;\nfor he is not hardy enough to say that he saw them himself;\u2014whether\nthey came out naked, and all in natural buff, he-saints and she-saints,\nor whether they came full dressed, and where they got their dresses;\nwhether they went to their former habitations, and reclaimed their\nwives, their husbands, and their property, and how they were received;\nwhether they entered ejectments for the recovery of their possessions,\nor brought actions of crim. con. against the rival interlopers; whether\nthey remained on earth, and followed their former occupation of\npreaching or working; or whether they died again, or went back to their\ngraves alive, and buried themselves.\n\nStrange indeed, that an army of saints should retum to life, and nobody\nknow who they were, nor who it was that saw them, and that not a word\nmore should be said upon the subject, nor these saints have any thing\nto tell us! Had it been the prophets who (as we are told) had formerly\nprophesied of these things, they must have had a great deal to say.\nThey could have told us everything, and we should have had posthumous\nprophecies, with notes and commentaries upon the first, a little better\nat least than we have now. Had it been Moses, and Aaron, and Joshua,\nand Samuel, and David, not an unconverted Jew had remained in all\nJerusalem. Had it been John the Baptist, and the saints of the times\nthen present, everybody would have known them, and they would have\nout-preached and out-famed all the other apostles. But, instead of\nthis, these saints are made to pop up, like Jonah\u2019s gourd in the night,\nfor no purpose at all but to wither in the morning.\u2014Thus much for this\npart of the story.\n\nThe tale of the resurrection follows that of the crucifixion; and in\nthis as well as in that, the writers, whoever they were, disagree so\nmuch as to make it evident that none of them were there.\n\nThe book of Matthew states, that when Christ was put in the sepulchre\nthe Jews applied to Pilate for a watch or a guard to be placed over the\nseptilchre, to prevent the body being stolen by the disciples; and that\nin consequence of this request the sepulchre was made sure, sealing the\nstone that covered the mouth, and setting a watch. But the other books\nsay nothing about this application, nor about the sealing, nor the\nguard, nor the watch; and according to their accounts, there were none.\nMatthew, however, follows up this part of the story of the guard or the\nwatch with a second part, that I shall notice in the conclusion, as it\nserves to detect the fallacy of those books.\n\nThe book of Matthew continues its account, and says, (xxviii. 1,) that\nat the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn, towards the first day\nof the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, to see the\nsepulchre. Mark says it was sun-rising, and John says it was dark. Luke\nsays it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James,\nand other women, that came to the sepulchre; and John states that Mary\nMagdalene came alone. So well do they agree about their first evidence!\nThey all, however, appear to have known most about Mary Magdalene; she\nwas a woman of large acquaintance, and it was not an ill conjecture\nthat she might be upon the stroll. [The Bishop of Llandaff, in his\nfamous \u201cApology,\u201d censured Paine severely for this insinuation against\nMary Magdalene, but the censure really falls on our English version,\nwhich, by a chapter-heading (Luke vii.), has unwarrantably identified\nher as the sinful woman who anointed Jesus, and irrevocably branded\nher.\u2014Editor.]\n\nThe book of Matthew goes on to say (ver. 2): \u201cAnd behold there was a\ngreat earthquake, for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and\ncame and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it\u201d But the\nother books say nothing about any earthquake, nor about the angel\nrolling back the stone, and sitting upon it and, according to their\naccount, there was no angel sitting there. Mark says the angel [Mark\nsays \u201ca young man,\u201d and Luke \u201ctwo men.\u201d\u2014Editor.] was within the\nsepulchre, sitting on the right side. Luke says there were two, and\nthey were both standing up; and John says they were both sitting down,\none at the head and the other at the feet.\n\nMatthew says, that the angel that was sitting upon the stone on the\noutside of the sepulchre told the two Marys that Christ was risen, and\nthat the women went away quickly. Mark says, that the women, upon\nseeing the stone rolled away, and wondering at it, went into the\nsepulchre, and that it was the angel that was sitting within on the\nright side, that told them so. Luke says, it was the two angels that\nwere Standing up; and John says, it was Jesus Christ himself that told\nit to Mary Magdalene; and that she did not go into the sepulchre, but\nonly stooped down and looked in.\n\nNow, if the writers of these four books had gone into a court of\njustice to prove an alibi, (for it is of the nature of an alibi that is\nhere attempted to be proved, namely, the absence of a dead body by\nsupernatural means,) and had they given their evidence in the same\ncontradictory manner as it is here given, they would have been in\ndanger of having their ears cropt for perjury, and would have justly\ndeserved it. Yet this is the evidence, and these are the books, that\nhave been imposed upon the world as being given by divine inspiration,\nand as the unchangeable word of God.\n\nThe writer of the book of Matthew, after giving this account, relates a\nstory that is not to be found in any of the other books, and which is\nthe same I have just before alluded to. \u201cNow,\u201d says he, [that is, after\nthe conversation the women had had with the angel sitting upon the\nstone,] \u201cbehold some of the watch [meaning the watch that he had said\nhad been placed over the sepulchre] came into the city, and shewed unto\nthe chief priests all the things that were done; and when they were\nassembled with the elders and had taken counsel, they gave large money\nunto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, that his disciples came by night,\nand stole him away while we slept; and if this come to the governor\u2019s\nears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took the money, and\ndid as they were taught; and this saying [that his disciples stole him\naway] is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.\u201d\n\nThe expression, until this day, is an evidence that the book ascribed\nto Matthew was not written by Matthew, and that it has been\nmanufactured long after the times and things of which it pretends to\ntreat; for the expression implies a great length of intervening time.\nIt would be inconsistent in us to speak in this manner of any thing\nhappening in our own time. To give, therefore, intelligible meaning to\nthe expression, we must suppose a lapse of some generations at least,\nfor this manner of speaking carries the mind back to ancient time.\n\nThe absurdity also of the story is worth noticing; for it shows the\nwriter of the book of Matthew to have been an exceeding weak and\nfoolish man. He tells a story that contradicts itself in point of\npossibility; for though the guard, if there were any, might be made to\nsay that the body was taken away while they were asleep, and to give\nthat as a reason for their not having prevented it, that same sleep\nmust also have prevented their knowing how, and by whom, it was done;\nand yet they are made to say that it was the disciples who did it. Were\na man to tender his evidence of something that he should say was done,\nand of the manner of doing it, and of the person who did it, while he\nwas asleep, and could know nothing of the matter, such evidence could\nnot be received: it will do well enough for Testament evidence, but not\nfor any thing where truth is concerned.\n\nI come now to that part of the evidence in those books, that respects\nthe pretended appearance of Christ after this pretended resurrection.\n\nThe writer of the book of Matthew relates, that the angel that was\nsitting on the stone at the mouth of the sepulchre, said to the two\nMarys (xxviii. 7), \u201cBehold Christ is gone before you into Galilee,\nthere ye shall see him; lo, I have told you.\u201d And the same writer at\nthe next two verses (8, 9,) makes Christ himself to speak to the same\npurpose to these women immediately after the angel had told it to them,\nand that they ran quickly to tell it to the disciples; and it is said\n(ver. 16), \u201cThen the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a\nmountain where Jesus had appointed them; and, when they saw him, they\nworshipped him.\u201d\n\nBut the writer of the book of John tells us a story very different to\nthis; for he says (xx. 19) \u201cThen the same day at evening, being the\nfirst day of the week, [that is, the same day that Christ is said to\nhave risen,] when the doors were shut, where the disciples were\nassembled, for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst of\nthem.\u201d\n\nAccording to Matthew the eleven were marching to Galilee, to meet Jesus\nin a mountain, by his own appointment, at the very time when, according\nto John, they were assembled in another place, and that not by\nappointment, but in secret, for fear of the Jews.\n\nThe writer of the book of Luke xxiv. 13, 33-36, contradicts that of\nMatthew more pointedly than John does; for he says expressly, that the\nmeeting was in Jerusalem the evening of the same day that he (Christ)\nrose, and that the eleven were there.\n\nNow, it is not possible, unless we admit these supposed disciples the\nright of wilful lying, that the writers of these books could be any of\nthe eleven persons called disciples; for if, according to Matthew, the\neleven went into Galilee to meet Jesus in a mountain by his own\nappointment, on the same day that he is said to have risen, Luke and\nJohn must have been two of that eleven; yet the writer of Luke says\nexpressly, and John implies as much, that the meeting was that same\nday, in a house in Jerusalem; and, on the other hand, if, according to\nLuke and John, the eleven were assembled in a house in Jerusalem,\nMatthew must have been one of that eleven; yet Matthew says the meeting\nwas in a mountain in Galilee, and consequently the evidence given in\nthose books destroy each other.\n\nThe writer of the book of Mark says nothing about any meeting in\nGalilee; but he says (xvi. 12) that Christ, after his resurrection,\nappeared in another form to two of them, as they walked into the\ncountry, and that these two told it to the residue, who would not\nbelieve them. [This belongs to the late addition to Mark, which\noriginally ended with xvi. 8.\u2014Editor.] Luke also tells a story, in\nwhich he keeps Christ employed the whole of the day of this pretended\nresurrection, until the evening, and which totally invalidates the\naccount of going to the mountain in Galilee. He says, that two of them,\nwithout saying which two, went that same day to a village called\nEmmaus, three score furlongs (seven miles and a half) from Jerusalem,\nand that Christ in disguise went with them, and stayed with them unto\nthe evening, and supped with them, and then vanished out of their\nsight, and reappeared that same evening, at the meeting of the eleven\nin Jerusalem.\n\nThis is the contradictory manner in which the evidence of this\npretended reappearance of Christ is stated: the only point in which the\nwriters agree, is the skulking privacy of that reappearance; for\nwhether it was in the recess of a mountain in Galilee, or in a shut-up\nhouse in Jerusalem, it was still skulking. To what cause then are we to\nassign this skulking? On the one hand, it is directly repugnant to the\nsupposed or pretended end, that of convincing the world that Christ was\nrisen; and, on the other hand, to have asserted the publicity of it\nwould have exposed the writers of those books to public detection; and,\ntherefore, they have been under the necessity of making it a private\naffair.\n\nAs to the account of Christ being seen by more than five hundred at\nonce, it is Paul only who says it, and not the five hundred who say it\nfor themselves. It is, therefore, the testimony of but one man, and\nthat too of a man, who did not, according to the same account, believe\na word of the matter himself at the time it is said to have happened.\nHis evidence, supposing him to have been the writer of Corinthians xv.,\nwhere this account is given, is like that of a man who comes into a\ncourt of justice to swear that what he had sworn before was false. A\nman may often see reason, and he has too always the right of changing\nhis opinion; but this liberty does not extend to matters of fact.\n\nI now come to the last scene, that of the ascension into heaven.\u2014Here\nall fear of the Jews, and of every thing else, must necessarily have\nbeen out of the question: it was that which, if true, was to seal the\nwhole; and upon which the reality of the future mission of the\ndisciples was to rest for proof. Words, whether declarations or\npromises, that passed in private, either in the recess of a mountain in\nGalilee, or in a shut-up house in Jerusalem, even supposing them to\nhave been spoken, could not be evidence in public; it was therefore\nnecessary that this last scene should preclude the possibility of\ndenial and dispute; and that it should be, as I have stated in the\nformer part of \u2018The Age of Reason,\u2019 as public and as visible as the sun\nat noon-day; at least it ought to have been as public as the\ncrucifixion is reported to have been.\u2014But to come to the point.\n\nIn the first place, the writer of the book of Matthew does not say a\nsyllable about it; neither does the writer of the book of John. This\nbeing the case, is it possible to suppose that those writers, who\naffect to be even minute in other matters, would have been silent upon\nthis, had it been true? The writer of the book of Mark passes it off in\na careless, slovenly manner, with a single dash of the pen, as if he\nwas tired of romancing, or ashamed of the story. So also does the\nwriter of Luke. And even between these two, there is not an apparent\nagreement, as to the place where this final parting is said to have\nbeen. [The last nine verses of Mark being ungenuine, the story of the\nascension rests exclusively on the words in Luke xxiv. 51, \u201cwas carried\nup into heaven,\u201d\u2014words omitted by several ancient authorities.\u2014Editor.]\n\nThe book of Mark says that Christ appeared to the eleven as they sat at\nmeat, alluding to the meeting of the eleven at Jerusalem: he then\nstates the conversation that he says passed at that meeting; and\nimmediately after says (as a school-boy would finish a dull story,) \u201cSo\nthen, after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into\nheaven, and sat on the right hand of God.\u201d But the writer of Luke says,\nthat the ascension was from Bethany; that he (Christ) led them out as\nfar as Bethany, and was parted from them there, and was carried up into\nheaven. So also was Mahomet: and, as to Moses, the apostle Jude says,\nver. 9. That \u2018Michael and the devil disputed about his body.\u2019 While we\nbelieve such fables as these, or either of them, we believe unworthily\nof the Almighty.\n\nI have now gone through the examination of the four books ascribed to\nMatthew, Mark, Luke and John; and when it is considered that the whole\nspace of time, from the crucifixion to what is called the ascension, is\nbut a few days, apparently not more than three or four, and that all\nthe circumstances are reported to have happened nearly about the same\nspot, Jerusalem, it is, I believe, impossible to find in any story upon\nrecord so many and such glaring absurdities, contradictions, and\nfalsehoods, as are in those books. They are more numerous and striking\nthan I had any expectation of finding, when I began this examination,\nand far more so than I had any idea of when I wrote the former part of\n\u2018The Age of Reason.\u2019 I had then neither Bible nor Testament to refer\nto, nor could I procure any. My own situation, even as to existence,\nwas becoming every day more precarious; and as I was willing to leave\nsomething behind me upon the subject, I was obliged to be quick and\nconcise. The quotations I then made were from memory only, but they are\ncorrect; and the opinions I have advanced in that work are the effect\nof the most clear and long-established conviction,\u2014that the Bible and\nthe Testament are impositions upon the world;\u2014that the fall of man, the\naccount of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to\nappease the wrath of God, and of salvation by that strange means, are\nall fabulous inventions, dishonourable to the wisdom and power of the\nAlmighty;\u2014that the only true religion is deism, by which I then meant\nand now mean the belief of one God, and an imitation of his moral\ncharacter, or the practice of what are called moral virtues;\u2014and that\nit was upon this only (so far as religion is concerned) that I rested\nall my hopes of happiness hereafter. So say I now\u2014and so help me God.\n\nBut to retum to the subject.\u2014Though it is impossible, at this distance\nof time, to ascertain as a fact who were the writers of those four\nbooks (and this alone is sufficient to hold them in doubt, and where we\ndoubt we do not believe) it is not difficult to ascertain negatively\nthat they were not written by the persons to whom they are ascribed.\nThe contradictions in those books demonstrate two things:\n\nFirst, that the writers cannot have been eye-witnesses and\near-witnesses of the matters they relate, or they would have related\nthem without those contradictions; and, consequently that the books\nhave not been written by the persons called apostles, who are supposed\nto have been witnesses of this kind.\n\nSecondly, that the writers, whoever they were, have not acted in\nconcerted imposition, but each writer separately and individually for\nhimself, and without the knowledge of the other.\n\nThe same evidence that applies to prove the one, applies equally to\nprove both cases; that is, that the books were not written by the men\ncalled apostles, and also that they are not a concerted imposition. As\nto inspiration, it is altogether out of the question; we may as well\nattempt to unite truth and falsehood, as inspiration and contradiction.\n\nIf four men are eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses to a scene, they will\nwithout any concert between them, agree as to time and place, when and\nwhere that scene happened. Their individual knowledge of the thing,\neach one knowing it for himself, renders concert totally unnecessary;\nthe one will not say it was in a mountain in the country, and the other\nat a house in town; the one will not say it was at sunrise, and the\nother that it was dark. For in whatever place it was and whatever time\nit was, they know it equally alike.\n\nAnd on the other hand, if four men concert a story, they will make\ntheir separate relations of that story agree and corroborate with each\nother to support the whole. That concert supplies the want of fact in\nthe one case, as the knowledge of the fact supersedes, in the other\ncase, the necessity of a concert. The same contradictions, therefore,\nthat prove there has been no concert, prove also that the reporters had\nno knowledge of the fact, (or rather of that which they relate as a\nfact,) and detect also the falsehood of their reports. Those books,\ntherefore, have neither been written by the men called apostles, nor by\nimposters in concert.\u2014How then have they been written?\n\nI am not one of those who are fond of believing there is much of that\nwhich is called wilful lying, or lying originally, except in the case\nof men setting up to be prophets, as in the Old Testament; for\nprophesying is lying professionally. In almost all other cases it is\nnot difficult to discover the progress by which even simple\nsupposition, with the aid of credulity, will in time grow into a lie,\nand at last be told as a fact; and whenever we can find a charitable\nreason for a thing of this kind, we ought not to indulge a severe one.\n\nThe story of Jesus Christ appearing after he was dead is the story of\nan apparition, such as timid imaginations can always create in vision,\nand credulity believe. Stories of this kind had been told of the\nassassination of Julius Caesar not many years before, and they\ngenerally have their origin in violent deaths, or in execution of\ninnocent persons. In cases of this kind, compassion lends its aid, and\nbenevolently stretches the story. It goes on a little and a little\nfarther, till it becomes a most certain truth. Once start a ghost, and\ncredulity fills up the history of its life, and assigns the cause of\nits appearance; one tells it one way, another another way, till there\nare as many stories about the ghost, and about the proprietor of the\nghost, as there are about Jesus Christ in these four books.\n\nThe story of the appearance of Jesus Christ is told with that strange\nmixture of the natural and impossible, that distinguishes legendary\ntale from fact. He is represented as suddenly coming in and going out\nwhen the doors are shut, and of vanishing out of sight, and appearing\nagain, as one would conceive of an unsubstantial vision; then again he\nis hungry, sits down to meat, and eats his supper. But as those who\ntell stories of this kind never provide for all the cases, so it is\nhere: they have told us, that when he arose he left his grave-clothes\nbehind him; but they have forgotten to provide other clothes for him to\nappear in afterwards, or to tell us what he did with them when he\nascended; whether he stripped all off, or went up clothes and all. In\nthe case of Elijah, they have been careful enough to make him throw\ndown his mantle; how it happened not to be burnt in the chariot of\nfire, they also have not told us; but as imagination supplies all\ndeficiencies of this kind, we may suppose if we please that it was made\nof salamander\u2019s wool.\n\nThose who are not much acquainted with ecclesiastical history, may\nsuppose that the book called the New Testament has existed ever since\nthe time of Jesus Christ, as they suppose that the books ascribed to\nMoses have existed ever since the time of Moses. But the fact is\nhistorically otherwise; there was no such book as the New Testament\ntill more than three hundred years after the time that Christ is said\nto have lived.\n\nAt what time the books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, began\nto appear, is altogether a matter of uncertainty. There is not the\nleast shadow of evidence of who the persons were that wrote them, nor\nat what time they were written; and they might as well have been called\nby the names of any of the other supposed apostles as by the names they\nare now called. The originals are not in the possession of any\nChristian Church existing, any more than the two tables of stone\nwritten on, they pretend, by the finger of God, upon Mount Sinai, and\ngiven to Moses, are in the possession of the Jews. And even if they\nwere, there is no possibility of proving the hand-writing in either\ncase. At the time those four books were written there was no printing,\nand consequently there could be no publication otherwise than by\nwritten copies, which any man might make or alter at pleasure, and call\nthem originals. Can we suppose it is consistent with the wisdom of the\nAlmighty to commit himself and his will to man upon such precarious\nmeans as these; or that it is consistent we should pin our faith upon\nsuch uncertainties? We cannot make nor alter, nor even imitate, so much\nas one blade of grass that he has made, and yet we can make or alter\nwords of God as easily as words of man. [The former part of the \u2018Age of\nReason\u2019 has not been published two years, and there is already an\nexpression in it that is not mine. The expression is: The book of Luke\nwas carried by a majority of one voice only. It may be true, but it is\nnot I that have said it. Some person who might know of that\ncircumstance, has added it in a note at the bottom of the page of some\nof the editions, printed either in England or in America; and the\nprinters, after that, have erected it into the body of the work, and\nmade me the author of it. If this has happened within such a short\nspace of time, notwithstanding the aid of printing, which prevents the\nalteration of copies individually, what may not have happened in a much\ngreater length of time, when there was no printing, and when any man\nwho could write could make a written copy and call it an original by\nMatthew, Mark, Luke, or John?\u2014Author.]\n\n[The spurious addition to Paine\u2019s work alluded to in his footnote drew\non him a severe criticism from Dr. Priestley (\u201cLetters to a\nPhilosophical Unbeliever,\u201d p. 75), yet it seems to have been Priestley\nhimself who, in his quotation, first incorporated into Paine\u2019s text the\nfootnote added by the editor of the American edition (1794). The\nAmerican added: \u201cVide Moshiem\u2019s (sic) Ecc. History,\u201d which Priestley\nomits. In a modern American edition I notice four verbal alterations\nintroduced into the above footnote.\u2014Editor.]\n\nAbout three hundred and fifty years after the time that Christ is said\nto have lived, several writings of the kind I am speaking of were\nscattered in the hands of divers individuals; and as the church had\nbegun to form itself into an hierarchy, or church government, with\ntemporal powers, it set itself about collecting them into a code, as we\nnow see them, called \u2018The New Testament.\u2019 They decided by vote, as I\nhave before said in the former part of the Age of Reason, which of\nthose writings, out of the collection they had made, should be the word\nof God, and which should not. The Robbins of the Jews had decided, by\nvote, upon the books of the Bible before.\n\nAs the object of the church, as is the case in all national\nestablishments of churches, was power and revenue, and terror the means\nit used, it is consistent to suppose that the most miraculous and\nwonderful of the writings they had collected stood the best chance of\nbeing voted. And as to the authenticity of the books, the vote stands\nin the place of it; for it can be traced no higher.\n\nDisputes, however, ran high among the people then calling themselves\nChristians, not only as to points of doctrine, but as to the\nauthenticity of the books. In the contest between the person called St.\nAugustine, and Fauste, about the year 400, the latter says, \u201cThe books\ncalled the Evangelists have been composed long after the times of the\napostles, by some obscure men, who, fearing that the world would not\ngive credit to their relation of matters of which they could not be\ninformed, have published them under the names of the apostles; and\nwhich are so full of sottishness and discordant relations, that there\nis neither agreement nor connection between them.\u201d\n\nAnd in another place, addressing himself to the advocates of those\nbooks, as being the word of God, he says, \u201cIt is thus that your\npredecessors have inserted in the scriptures of our Lord many things\nwhich, though they carry his name, agree not with his doctrine.\u201d This\nis not surprising, since that we have often proved that these things\nhave not been written by himself, nor by his apostles, but that for the\ngreatest part they are founded upon tales, upon vague reports, and put\ntogether by I know not what half-Jews, with but little agreement\nbetween them; and which they have nevertheless published under the name\nof the apostles of our Lord, and have thus attributed to them their own\nerrors and their lies. [I have taken these two extracts from\nBoulanger\u2019s Life of Paul, written in French; Boulanger has quoted them\nfrom the writings of Augustine against Fauste, to which he\nrefers.\u2014Author.]\n\nThis Bishop Faustus is usually styled \u201cThe Manichaeum,\u201d Augustine\nhaving entitled his book, Contra Frustum Manichaeum Libri xxxiii., in\nwhich nearly the whole of Faustus\u2019 very able work is quoted.\u2014Editor.]\n\nThe reader will see by those extracts that the authenticity of the\nbooks of the New Testament was denied, and the books treated as tales,\nforgeries, and lies, at the time they were voted to be the word of God.\nBut the interest of the church, with the assistance of the faggot, bore\ndown the opposition, and at last suppressed all investigation. Miracles\nfollowed upon miracles, if we will believe them, and men were taught to\nsay they believed whether they believed or not. But (by way of throwing\nin a thought) the French Revolution has excommunicated the church from\nthe power of working miracles; she has not been able, with the\nassistance of all her saints, to work one miracle since the revolution\nbegan; and as she never stood in greater need than now, we may, without\nthe aid of divination, conclude that all her former miracles are tricks\nand lies. [Boulanger in his life of Paul, has collected from the\necclesiastical histories, and the writings of the fathers as they are\ncalled, several matters which show the opinions that prevailed among\nthe different sects of Christians, at the time the Testament, as we now\nsee it, was voted to be the word of God. The following extracts are\nfrom the second chapter of that work:\n\n[The Marcionists (a Christian sect) asserted that the evangelists were\nfilled with falsities. The Manichaeans, who formed a very numerous sect\nat the commencement of Christianity, rejected as false all the New\nTestament, and showed other writings quite different that they gave for\nauthentic. The Corinthians, like the Marcionists, admitted not the Acts\nof the Apostles. The Encratites and the Sevenians adopted neither the\nActs, nor the Epistles of Paul. Chrysostom, in a homily which he made\nupon the Acts of the Apostles, says that in his time, about the year\n400, many people knew nothing either of the author or of the book. St.\nIrene, who lived before that time, reports that the Valentinians, like\nseveral other sects of the Christians, accused the scriptures of being\nfilled with imperfections, errors, and contradictions. The Ebionites,\nor Nazarenes, who were the first Christians, rejected all the Epistles\nof Paul, and regarded him as an impostor. They report, among other\nthings, that he was originally a Pagan; that he came to Jerusalem,\nwhere he lived some time; and that having a mind to marry the daughter\nof the high priest, he had himself been circumcised; but that not being\nable to obtain her, he quarrelled with the Jews and wrote against\ncircumcision, and against the observation of the Sabbath, and against\nall the legal ordinances.\u2014Author.] [Much abridged from the Exam. Crit.\nde la Vie de St. Paul, by N.A. Boulanger, 1770.\u2014Editor.]\n\nWhen we consider the lapse of more than three hundred years intervening\nbetween the time that Christ is said to have lived and the time the New\nTestament was formed into a book, we must see, even without the\nassistance of historical evidence, the exceeding uncertainty there is\nof its authenticity. The authenticity of the book of Homer, so far as\nregards the authorship, is much better established than that of the New\nTestament, though Homer is a thousand years the most ancient. It was\nonly an exceeding good poet that could have written the book of Homer,\nand, therefore, few men only could have attempted it; and a man capable\nof doing it would not have thrown away his own fame by giving it to\nanother. In like manner, there were but few that could have composed\nEuclid\u2019s Elements, because none but an exceeding good geometrician\ncould have been the author of that work.\n\nBut with respect to the books of the New Testament, particularly such\nparts as tell us of the resurrection and ascension of Christ, any\nperson who could tell a story of an apparition, or of a man\u2019s walking,\ncould have made such books; for the story is most wretchedly told. The\nchance, therefore, of forgery in the Testament is millions to one\ngreater than in the case of Homer or Euclid. Of the numerous priests or\nparsons of the present day, bishops and all, every one of them can make\na sermon, or translate a scrap of Latin, especially if it has been\ntranslated a thousand times before; but is there any amongst them that\ncan write poetry like Homer, or science like Euclid? The sum total of a\nparson\u2019s learning, with very few exceptions, is a, b, ab, and hic,\nhaec, hoc; and their knowledge of science is, three times one is three;\nand this is more than sufficient to have enabled them, had they lived\nat the time, to have written all the books of the New Testament.\n\nAs the opportunities of forgery were greater, so also was the\ninducement. A man could gain no advantage by writing under the name of\nHomer or Euclid; if he could write equal to them, it would be better\nthat he wrote under his own name; if inferior, he could not succeed.\nPride would prevent the former, and impossibility the latter. But with\nrespect to such books as compose the New Testament, all the inducements\nwere on the side of forgery. The best imagined history that could have\nbeen made, at the distance of two or three hundred years after the\ntime, could not have passed for an original under the name of the real\nwriter; the only chance of success lay in forgery; for the church\nwanted pretence for its new doctrine, and truth and talents were out of\nthe question.\n\nBut as it is not uncommon (as before observed) to relate stories of\npersons walking after they are dead, and of ghosts and apparitions of\nsuch as have fallen by some violent or extraordinary means; and as the\npeople of that day were in the habit of believing such things, and of\nthe appearance of angels, and also of devils, and of their getting into\npeople\u2019s insides, and shaking them like a fit of an ague, and of their\nbeing cast out again as if by an emetic\u2014(Mary Magdalene, the book of\nMark tells us had brought up, or been brought to bed of seven devils;)\nit was nothing extraordinary that some story of this kind should get\nabroad of the person called Jesus Christ, and become afterwards the\nfoundation of the four books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.\nEach writer told a tale as he heard it, or thereabouts, and gave to his\nbook the name of the saint or the apostle whom tradition had given as\nthe eye-witness. It is only upon this ground that the contradictions in\nthose books can be accounted for; and if this be not the case, they are\ndownright impositions, lies, and forgeries, without even the apology of\ncredulity.\n\nThat they have been written by a sort of half Jews, as the foregoing\nquotations mention, is discernible enough. The frequent references made\nto that chief assassin and impostor Moses, and to the men called\nprophets, establishes this point; and, on the other hand, the church\nhas complimented the fraud, by admitting the Bible and the Testament to\nreply to each other. Between the Christian-Jew and the\nChristian-Gentile, the thing called a prophecy, and the thing\nprophesied of, the type and the thing typified, the sign and the thing\nsignified, have been industriously rummaged up, and fitted together\nlike old locks and pick-lock keys. The story foolishly enough told of\nEve and the serpent, and naturally enough as to the enmity between men\nand serpents (for the serpent always bites about the heel, because it\ncannot reach higher, and the man always knocks the serpent about the\nhead, as the most effectual way to prevent its biting;) [\u201cIt shall\nbruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.\u201d Gen. iii.\n15.\u2014Author.] this foolish story, I say, has been made into a prophecy,\na type, and a promise to begin with; and the lying imposition of Isaiah\nto Ahaz, \u2018That a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,\u2019 as a sign that\nAhaz should conquer, when the event was that he was defeated (as\nalready noticed in the observations on the book of Isaiah), has been\nperverted, and made to serve as a winder up.\n\nJonah and the whale are also made into a sign and type. Jonah is Jesus,\nand the whale is the grave; for it is said, (and they have made Christ\nto say it of himself, Matt. xii. 40), \u201cFor as Jonah was three days and\nthree nights in the whale\u2019s belly, so shall the Son of man be three\ndays and three nights in the heart of the earth.\u201d But it happens,\nawkwardly enough, that Christ, according to their own account, was but\none day and two nights in the grave; about 36 hours instead of 72; that\nis, the Friday night, the Saturday, and the Saturday night; for they\nsay he was up on the Sunday morning by sunrise, or before. But as this\nfits quite as well as the bite and the kick in Genesis, or the virgin\nand her son in Isaiah, it will pass in the lump of orthodox\nthings.\u2014Thus much for the historical part of the Testament and its\nevidences.\n\nEpistles of Paul\u2014The epistles ascribed to Paul, being fourteen in\nnumber, almost fill up the remaining part of the Testament. Whether\nthose epistles were written by the person to whom they are ascribed is\na matter of no great importance, since that the writer, whoever he was,\nattempts to prove his doctrine by argument. He does not pretend to have\nbeen witness to any of the scenes told of the resurrection and the\nascension; and he declares that he had not believed them.\n\nThe story of his being struck to the ground as he was journeying to\nDamascus, has nothing in it miraculous or extraordinary; he escaped\nwith life, and that is more than many others have done, who have been\nstruck with lightning; and that he should lose his sight for three\ndays, and be unable to eat or drink during that time, is nothing more\nthan is common in such conditions. His companions that were with him\nappear not to have suffered in the same manner, for they were well\nenough to lead him the remainder of the journey; neither did they\npretend to have seen any vision.\n\nThe character of the person called Paul, according to the accounts\ngiven of him, has in it a great deal of violence and fanaticism; he had\npersecuted with as much heat as he preached afterwards; the stroke he\nhad received had changed his thinking, without altering his\nconstitution; and either as a Jew or a Christian he was the same\nzealot. Such men are never good moral evidences of any doctrine they\npreach. They are always in extremes, as well of action as of belief.\n\nThe doctrine he sets out to prove by argument, is the resurrection of\nthe same body: and he advances this as an evidence of immortality. But\nso much will men differ in their manner of thinking, and in the\nconclusions they draw from the same premises, that this doctrine of the\nresurrection of the same body, so far from being an evidence of\nimmortality, appears to me to be an evidence against it; for if I have\nalready died in this body, and am raised again in the same body in\nwhich I have died, it is presumptive evidence that I shall die again.\nThat resurrection no more secures me against the repetition of dying,\nthan an ague-fit, when past, secures me against another. To believe\ntherefore in immortality, I must have a more elevated idea than is\ncontained in the gloomy doctrine of the resurrection.\n\nBesides, as a matter of choice, as well as of hope, I had rather have a\nbetter body and a more convenient form than the present. Every animal\nin the creation excels us in something. The winged insects, without\nmentioning doves or eagles, can pass over more space with greater ease\nin a few minutes than man can in an hour. The glide of the smallest\nfish, in proportion to its bulk, exceeds us in motion almost beyond\ncomparison, and without weariness. Even the sluggish snail can ascend\nfrom the bottom of a dungeon, where man, by the want of that ability,\nwould perish; and a spider can launch itself from the top, as a playful\namusement. The personal powers of man are so limited, and his heavy\nframe so little constructed to extensive enjoyment, that there is\nnothing to induce us to wish the opinion of Paul to be true. It is too\nlittle for the magnitude of the scene, too mean for the sublimity of\nthe subject.\n\nBut all other arguments apart, the consciousness of existence is the\nonly conceivable idea we can have of another life, and the continuance\nof that consciousness is immortality. The consciousness of existence,\nor the knowing that we exist, is not necessarily confined to the same\nform, nor to the same matter, even in this life.\n\nWe have not in all cases the same form, nor in any case the same\nmatter, that composed our bodies twenty or thirty years ago; and yet we\nare conscious of being the same persons. Even legs and arms, which make\nup almost half the human frame, are not necessary to the consciousness\nof existence. These may be lost or taken away and the full\nconsciousness of existence remain; and were their place supplied by\nwings, or other appendages, we cannot conceive that it could alter our\nconsciousness of existence. In short, we know not how much, or rather\nhow little, of our composition it is, and how exquisitely fine that\nlittle is, that creates in us this consciousness of existence; and all\nbeyond that is like the pulp of a peach, distinct and separate from the\nvegetative speck in the kernel.\n\nWho can say by what exceeding fine action of fine matter it is that a\nthought is produced in what we call the mind? and yet that thought when\nproduced, as I now produce the thought I am writing, is capable of\nbecoming immortal, and is the only production of man that has that\ncapacity.\n\nStatues of brass and marble will perish; and statues made in imitation\nof them are not the same statues, nor the same workmanship, any more\nthan the copy of a picture is the same picture. But print and reprint a\nthought a thousand times over, and that with materials of any kind,\ncarve it in wood, or engrave it on stone, the thought is eternally and\nidentically the same thought in every case. It has a capacity of\nunimpaired existence, unaffected by change of matter, and is\nessentially distinct, and of a nature different from every thing else\nthat we know of, or can conceive. If then the thing produced has in\nitself a capacity of being immortal, it is more than a token that the\npower that produced it, which is the self-same thing as consciousness\nof existence, can be immortal also; and that as independently of the\nmatter it was first connected with, as the thought is of the printing\nor writing it first appeared in. The one idea is not more difficult to\nbelieve than the other; and we can see that one is true.\n\nThat the consciousness of existence is not dependent on the same form\nor the same matter, is demonstrated to our senses in the works of the\ncreation, as far as our senses are capable of receiving that\ndemonstration. A very numerous part of the animal creation preaches to\nus, far better than Paul, the belief of a life hereafter. Their little\nlife resembles an earth and a heaven, a present and a future state; and\ncomprises, if it may be so expressed, immortality in miniature.\n\nThe most beautiful parts of the creation to our eye are the winged\ninsects, and they are not so originally. They acquire that form and\nthat inimitable brilliancy by progressive changes. The slow and\ncreeping caterpillar worm of to day, passes in a few days to a torpid\nfigure, and a state resembling death; and in the next change comes\nforth in all the miniature magnificence of life, a splendid butterfly.\nNo resemblance of the former creature remains; every thing is changed;\nall his powers are new, and life is to him another thing. We cannot\nconceive that the consciousness of existence is not the same in this\nstate of the animal as before; why then must I believe that the\nresurrection of the same body is necessary to continue to me the\nconsciousness of existence hereafter?\n\nIn the former part of \u2018The Age of Reason.\u2019 I have called the creation\nthe true and only real word of God; and this instance, or this text, in\nthe book of creation, not only shows to us that this thing may be so,\nbut that it is so; and that the belief of a future state is a rational\nbelief, founded upon facts visible in the creation: for it is not more\ndifficult to believe that we shall exist hereafter in a better state\nand form than at present, than that a worm should become a butterfly,\nand quit the dunghill for the atmosphere, if we did not know it as a\nfact.\n\nAs to the doubtful jargon ascribed to Paul in 1 Corinthians xv., which\nmakes part of the burial service of some Christian sectaries, it is as\ndestitute of meaning as the tolling of a bell at the funeral; it\nexplains nothing to the understanding, it illustrates nothing to the\nimagination, but leaves the reader to find any meaning if he can. \u201cAll\nflesh,\u201d says he, \u201cis not the same flesh. There is one flesh of men,\nanother of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.\u201d And what\nthen? nothing. A cook could have said as much. \u201cThere are also,\u201d says\nhe, \u201cbodies celestial and bodies terrestrial; the glory of the\ncelestial is one and the glory of the terrestrial is the other.\u201d And\nwhat then? nothing. And what is the difference? nothing that he has\ntold. \u201cThere is,\u201d says he, \u201cone glory of the sun, and another glory of\nthe moon, and another glory of the stars.\u201d And what then? nothing;\nexcept that he says that one star differeth from another star in glory,\ninstead of distance; and he might as well have told us that the moon\ndid not shine so bright as the sun. All this is nothing better than the\njargon of a conjuror, who picks up phrases he does not understand to\nconfound the credulous people who come to have their fortune told.\nPriests and conjurors are of the same trade.\n\nSometimes Paul affects to be a naturalist, and to prove his system of\nresurrection from the principles of vegetation. \u201cThou fool\u201d says he,\n\u201cthat which thou sowest is not quickened except it die.\u201d To which one\nmight reply in his own language, and say, Thou fool, Paul, that which\nthou sowest is not quickened except it die not; for the grain that dies\nin the ground never does, nor can vegetate. It is only the living\ngrains that produce the next crop. But the metaphor, in any point of\nview, is no simile. It is succession, and [not] resurrection.\n\nThe progress of an animal from one state of being to another, as from a\nworm to a butterfly, applies to the case; but this of a grain does not,\nand shows Paul to have been what he says of others, a fool.\n\nWhether the fourteen epistles ascribed to Paul were written by him or\nnot, is a matter of indifference; they are either argumentative or\ndogmatical; and as the argument is defective, and the dogmatical part\nis merely presumptive, it signifies not who wrote them. And the same\nmay be said for the remaining parts of the Testament. It is not upon\nthe Epistles, but upon what is called the Gospel, contained in the four\nbooks ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and upon the pretended\nprophecies, that the theory of the church, calling itself the Christian\nChurch, is founded. The Epistles are dependant upon those, and must\nfollow their fate; for if the story of Jesus Christ be fabulous, all\nreasoning founded upon it, as a supposed truth, must fall with it.\n\nWe know from history, that one of the principal leaders of this church,\nAthanasius, lived at the time the New Testament was formed; [Athanasius\ndied, according to the Church chronology, in the year 371\u2014Author.] and\nwe know also, from the absurd jargon he has left us under the name of a\ncreed, the character of the men who formed the New Testament; and we\nknow also from the same history that the authenticity of the books of\nwhich it is composed was denied at the time. It was upon the vote of\nsuch as Athanasius that the Testament was decreed to be the word of\nGod; and nothing can present to us a more strange idea than that of\ndecreeing the word of God by vote. Those who rest their faith upon such\nauthority put man in the place of God, and have no true foundation for\nfuture happiness. Credulity, however, is not a crime, but it becomes\ncriminal by resisting conviction. It is strangling in the womb of the\nconscience the efforts it makes to ascertain truth. We should never\nforce belief upon ourselves in any thing.\n\nI here close the subject on the Old Testament and the New. The evidence\nI have produced to prove them forgeries, is extracted from the books\nthemselves, and acts, like a two-edge sword, either way. If the\nevidence be denied, the authenticity of the Scriptures is denied with\nit, for it is Scripture evidence: and if the evidence be admitted, the\nauthenticity of the books is disproved. The contradictory\nimpossibilities, contained in the Old Testament and the New, put them\nin the case of a man who swears for and against. Either evidence\nconvicts him of perjury, and equally destroys reputation.\n\nShould the Bible and the Testament hereafter fall, it is not that I\nhave done it. I have done no more than extracted the evidence from the\nconfused mass of matters with which it is mixed, and arranged that\nevidence in a point of light to be clearly seen and easily\ncomprehended; and, having done this, I leave the reader to judge for\nhimself, as I have judged for myself.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\nCONCLUSION\n\n\nIn the former part of \u2018The Age of Reason\u2019 I have spoken of the three\nfrauds, mystery, miracle, and Prophecy; and as I have seen nothing in\nany of the answers to that work that in the least affects what I have\nthere said upon those subjects, I shall not encumber this Second Part\nwith additions that are not necessary.\n\nI have spoken also in the same work upon what is celled revelation, and\nhave shown the absurd misapplication of that term to the books of the\nOld Testament and the New; for certainly revelation is out of the\nquestion in reciting any thing of which man has been the actor or the\nwitness. That which man has done or seen, needs no revelation to tell\nhim he has done it, or seen it\u2014for he knows it already\u2014nor to enable\nhim to tell it or to write it. It is ignorance, or imposition, to apply\nthe term revelation in such cases; yet the Bible and Testament are\nclassed under this fraudulent description of being all revelation.\n\nRevelation then, so far as the term has relation between God and man,\ncan only be applied to something which God reveals of his will to man;\nbut though the power of the Almighty to make such a communication is\nnecessarily admitted, because to that power all things are possible,\nyet, the thing so revealed (if any thing ever was revealed, and which,\nby the bye, it is impossible to prove) is revelation to the person only\nto whom it is made. His account of it to another is not revelation; and\nwhoever puts faith in that account, puts it in the man from whom the\naccount comes; and that man may have been deceived, or may have dreamed\nit; or he may be an impostor and may lie. There is no possible\ncriterion whereby to judge of the truth of what he tells; for even the\nmorality of it would be no proof of revelation. In all such cases, the\nproper answer should be, \u201cWhen it is revealed to me, I will believe it\nto be revelation; but it is not and cannot be incumbent upon me to\nbelieve it to be revelation before; neither is it proper that I should\ntake the word of man as the word of God, and put man in the place of\nGod.\u201d This is the manner in which I have spoken of revelation in the\nformer part of The Age of Reason; and which, whilst it reverentially\nadmits revelation as a possible thing, because, as before said, to the\nAlmighty all things are possible, it prevents the imposition of one man\nupon another, and precludes the wicked use of pretended revelation.\n\nBut though, speaking for myself, I thus admit the possibility of\nrevelation, I totally disbelieve that the Almighty ever did communicate\nany thing to man, by any mode of speech, in any language, or by any\nkind of vision, or appearance, or by any means which our senses are\ncapable of receiving, otherwise than by the universal display of\nhimself in the works of the creation, and by that repugnance we feel in\nourselves to bad actions, and disposition to good ones. [A fair\nparallel of the then unknown aphorism of Kant: \u201cTwo things fill the\nsoul with wonder and reverence, increasing evermore as I meditate more\nclosely upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within\nme.\u201d (Kritik derpraktischen Vernunfe, 1788). Kant\u2019s religious\nutterances at the beginning of the French Revolution brought on him a\nroyal mandate of silence, because he had worked out from \u201cthe moral law\nwithin\u201d a principle of human equality precisely similar to that which\nPaine had derived from his Quaker doctrine of the \u201cinner light\u201d of\nevery man. About the same time Paine\u2019s writings were suppressed in\nEngland. Paine did not understand German, but Kant, though always\nindependent in the formation of his opinions, was evidently well\nacquainted with the literature of the Revolution, in America, England,\nand France.\u2014Editor.]\n\nThe most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the\ngreatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race have had their\norigin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has\nbeen the most dishonourable belief against the character of the\ndivinity, the most destructive to morality, and the peace and happiness\nof man, that ever was propagated since man began to exist. It is\nbetter, far better, that we admitted, if it were possible, a thousand\ndevils to roam at large, and to preach publicly the doctrine of devils,\nif there were any such, than that we permitted one such impostor and\nmonster as Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and the Bible prophets, to come with\nthe pretended word of God in his mouth, and have credit among us.\n\nWhence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men,\nwomen, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody\npersecutions, and tortures unto death and religious wars, that since\nthat time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but\nfrom this impious thing called revealed religion, and this monstrous\nbelief that God has spoken to man? The lies of the Bible have been the\ncause of the one, and the lies of the Testament [of] the other.\n\nSome Christians pretend that Christianity was not established by the\nsword; but of what period of time do they speak? It was impossible that\ntwelve men could begin with the sword: they had not the power; but no\nsooner were the professors of Christianity sufficiently powerful to\nemploy the sword than they did so, and the stake and faggot too; and\nMahomet could not do it sooner. By the same spirit that Peter cut off\nthe ear of the high priest\u2019s servant (if the story be true) he would\ncut off his head, and the head of his master, had he been able. Besides\nthis, Christianity grounds itself originally upon the [Hebrew] Bible,\nand the Bible was established altogether by the sword, and that in the\nworst use of it\u2014not to terrify, but to extirpate. The Jews made no\nconverts: they butchered all. The Bible is the sire of the [New]\nTestament, and both are called the word of God. The Christians read\nboth books; the ministers preach from both books; and this thing called\nChristianity is made up of both. It is then false to say that\nChristianity was not established by the sword.\n\nThe only sect that has not persecuted are the Quakers; and the only\nreason that can be given for it is, that they are rather Deists than\nChristians. They do not believe much about Jesus Christ, and they call\nthe scriptures a dead letter. [This is an interesting and correct\ntestimony as to the beliefs of the earlier Quakers, one of whom was\nPaine\u2019s father.\u2014Editor.] Had they called them by a worse name, they had\nbeen nearer the truth.\n\nIt is incumbent on every man who reverences the character of the\nCreator, and who wishes to lessen the catalogue of artificial miseries,\nand remove the cause that has sown persecutions thick among mankind, to\nexpel all ideas of a revealed religion as a dangerous heresy, and an\nimpious fraud. What is it that we have learned from this pretended\nthing called revealed religion? Nothing that is useful to man, and\nevery thing that is dishonourable to his Maker. What is it the Bible\nteaches us?\u2014repine, cruelty, and murder. What is it the Testament\nteaches us?\u2014to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a\nwoman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is\ncalled faith.\n\nAs to the fragments of morality that are irregularly and thinly\nscattered in those books, they make no part of this pretended thing,\nrevealed religion. They are the natural dictates of conscience, and the\nbonds by which society is held together, and without which it cannot\nexist; and are nearly the same in all religions, and in all societies.\nThe Testament teaches nothing new upon this subject, and where it\nattempts to exceed, it becomes mean and ridiculous. The doctrine of not\nretaliating injuries is much better expressed in Proverbs, which is a\ncollection as well from the Gentiles as the Jews, than it is in the\nTestament. It is there said, (Xxv. 2 I) \u201cIf thine enemy be hungry, give\nhim bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:\u201d\n[According to what is called Christ\u2019s sermon on the mount, in the book\nof Matthew, where, among some other [and] good things, a great deal of\nthis feigned morality is introduced, it is there expressly said, that\nthe doctrine of forbearance, or of not retaliating injuries, was not\nany part of the doctrine of the Jews; but as this doctrine is found in\n\u201cProverbs,\u201d it must, according to that statement, have been copied from\nthe Gentiles, from whom Christ had learned it. Those men whom Jewish\nand Christian idolators have abusively called heathen, had much better\nand clearer ideas of justice and morality than are to be found in the\nOld Testament, so far as it is Jewish, or in the New. The answer of\nSolon on the question, \u201cWhich is the most perfect popular govemment,\u201d\nhas never been exceeded by any man since his time, as containing a\nmaxim of political morality, \u201cThat,\u201d says he, \u201cwhere the least injury\ndone to the meanest individual, is considered as an insult on the whole\nconstitution.\u201d Solon lived about 500 years before Christ.\u2014Author.] but\nwhen it is said, as in the Testament, \u201cIf a man smite thee on the right\ncheek, turn to him the other also,\u201d it is assassinating the dignity of\nforbearance, and sinking man into a spaniel.\n\nLoving, of enemies is another dogma of feigned morality, and has\nbesides no meaning. It is incumbent on man, as a moralist, that he does\nnot revenge an injury; and it is equally as good in a political sense,\nfor there is no end to retaliation; each retaliates on the other, and\ncalls it justice: but to love in proportion to the injury, if it could\nbe done, would be to offer a premium for a crime. Besides, the word\nenemies is too vague and general to be used in a moral maxim, which\nought always to be clear and defined, like a proverb. If a man be the\nenemy of another from mistake and prejudice, as in the case of\nreligious opinions, and sometimes in politics, that man is different to\nan enemy at heart with a criminal intention; and it is incumbent upon\nus, and it contributes also to our own tranquillity, that we put the\nbest construction upon a thing that it will bear. But even this\nerroneous motive in him makes no motive for love on the other part; and\nto say that we can love voluntarily, and without a motive, is morally\nand physically impossible.\n\nMorality is injured by prescribing to it duties that, in the first\nplace, are impossible to be performed, and if they could be would be\nproductive of evil; or, as before said, be premiums for crime. The\nmaxim of doing as we would be done unto does not include this strange\ndoctrine of loving enemies; for no man expects to be loved himself for\nhis crime or for his enmity.\n\nThose who preach this doctrine of loving their enemies, are in general\nthe greatest persecutors, and they act consistently by so doing; for\nthe doctrine is hypocritical, and it is natural that hypocrisy should\nact the reverse of what it preaches. For my own part, I disown the\ndoctrine, and consider it as a feigned or fabulous morality; yet the\nman does not exist that can say I have persecuted him, or any man, or\nany set of men, either in the American Revolution, or in the French\nRevolution; or that I have, in any case, returned evil for evil. But it\nis not incumbent on man to reward a bad action with a good one, or to\nreturn good for evil; and wherever it is done, it is a voluntary act,\nand not a duty. It is also absurd to suppose that such doctrine can\nmake any part of a revealed religion. We imitate the moral character of\nthe Creator by forbearing with each other, for he forbears with all;\nbut this doctrine would imply that he loved man, not in proportion as\nhe was good, but as he was bad.\n\nIf we consider the nature of our condition here, we must see there is\nno occasion for such a thing as revealed religion. What is it we want\nto know? Does not the creation, the universe we behold, preach to us\nthe existence of an Almighty power, that governs and regulates the\nwhole? And is not the evidence that this creation holds out to our\nsenses infinitely stronger than any thing we can read in a book, that\nany imposter might make and call the word of God? As for morality, the\nknowledge of it exists in every man\u2019s conscience.\n\nHere we are. The existence of an Almighty power is sufficiently\ndemonstrated to us, though we cannot conceive, as it is impossible we\nshould, the nature and manner of its existence. We cannot conceive how\nwe came here ourselves, and yet we know for a fact that we are here. We\nmust know also, that the power that called us into being, can if he\nplease, and when he pleases, call us to account for the manner in which\nwe have lived here; and therefore without seeking any other motive for\nthe belief, it is rational to believe that he will, for we know\nbeforehand that he can. The probability or even possibility of the\nthing is all that we ought to know; for if we knew it as a fact, we\nshould be the mere slaves of terror; our belief would have no merit,\nand our best actions no virtue.\n\nDeism then teaches us, without the possibility of being deceived, all\nthat is necessary or proper to be known. The creation is the Bible of\nthe deist. He there reads, in the hand-writing of the Creator himself,\nthe certainty of his existence, and the immutability of his power; and\nall other Bibles and Testaments are to him forgeries. The probability\nthat we may be called to account hereafter, will, to reflecting minds,\nhave the influence of belief; for it is not our belief or disbelief\nthat can make or unmake the fact. As this is the state we are in, and\nwhich it is proper we should be in, as free agents, it is the fool\nonly, and not the philosopher, nor even the prudent man, that will live\nas if there were no God.\n\nBut the belief of a God is so weakened by being mixed with the strange\nfable of the Christian creed, and with the wild adventures related in\nthe Bible, and the obscurity and obscene nonsense of the Testament,\nthat the mind of man is bewildered as in a fog. Viewing all these\nthings in a confused mass, he confounds fact with fable; and as he\ncannot believe all, he feels a disposition to reject all. But the\nbelief of a God is a belief distinct from all other things, and ought\nnot to be confounded with any. The notion of a Trinity of Gods has\nenfeebled the belief of one God. A multiplication of beliefs acts as a\ndivision of belief; and in proportion as anything is divided, it is\nweakened.\n\nReligion, by such means, becomes a thing of form instead of fact; of\nnotion instead of principle: morality is banished to make room for an\nimaginary thing called faith, and this faith has its origin in a\nsupposed debauchery; a man is preached instead of a God; an execution\nis an object for gratitude; the preachers daub themselves with the\nblood, like a troop of assassins, and pretend to admire the brilliancy\nit gives them; they preach a humdrum sermon on the merits of the\nexecution; then praise Jesus Christ for being executed, and condemn the\nJews for doing it.\n\nA man, by hearing all this nonsense lumped and preached together,\nconfounds the God of the Creation with the imagined God of the\nChristians, and lives as if there were none.\n\nOf all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none\nmore derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant\nto reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called\nChristianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and\ntoo inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces\nonly atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the\npurpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests;\nbut so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing\nhere or hereafter.\n\nThe only religion that has not been invented, and that has in it every\nevidence of divine originality, is pure and simple deism. It must have\nbeen the first and will probably be the last that man believes. But\npure and simple deism does not answer the purpose of despotic\ngovernments. They cannot lay hold of religion as an engine but by\nmixing it with human inventions, and making their own authority a part;\nneither does it answer the avarice of priests, but by incorporating\nthemselves and their functions with it, and becoming, like the\ngovernment, a party in the system. It is this that forms the otherwise\nmysterious connection of church and state; the church human, and the\nstate tyrannic.\n\nWere a man impressed as fully and strongly as he ought to be with the\nbelief of a God, his moral life would be regulated by the force of\nbelief; he would stand in awe of God, and of himself, and would not do\nthe thing that could not be concealed from either. To give this belief\nthe full opportunity of force, it is necessary that it acts alone. This\nis deism.\n\nBut when, according to the Christian Trinitarian scheme, one part of\nGod is represented by a dying man, and another part, called the Holy\nGhost, by a flying pigeon, it is impossible that belief can attach\nitself to such wild conceits. [The book called the book of Matthew,\nsays, (iii. 16,) that the Holy Ghost descended in the shape of a dove.\nIt might as well have said a goose; the creatures are equally harmless,\nand the one is as much a nonsensical lie as the other. Acts, ii. 2, 3,\nsays, that it descended in a mighty rushing wind, in the shape of\ncloven tongues: perhaps it was cloven feet. Such absurd stuff is fit\nonly for tales of witches and wizards.\u2014Author.]\n\nIt has been the scheme of the Christian church, and of all the other\ninvented systems of religion, to hold man in ignorance of the Creator,\nas it is of government to hold him in ignorance of his rights. The\nsystems of the one are as false as those of the other, and are\ncalculated for mutual support. The study of theology as it stands in\nChristian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing;\nit rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no\ndata; it can demonstrate nothing; and admits of no conclusion. Not any\nthing can be studied as a science without our being in possession of\nthe principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case\nwith Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.\n\nInstead then of studying theology, as is now done, out of the Bible and\nTestament, the meanings of which books are always controverted, and the\nauthenticity of which is disproved, it is necessary that we refer to\nthe Bible of the creation. The principles we discover there are\neternal, and of divine origin: they are the foundation of all the\nscience that exists in the world, and must be the foundation of\ntheology.\n\nWe can know God only through his works. We cannot have a conception of\nany one attribute, but by following some principle that leads to it. We\nhave only a confused idea of his power, if we have not the means of\ncomprehending something of its immensity. We can have no idea of his\nwisdom, but by knowing the order and manner in which it acts. The\nprinciples of science lead to this knowledge; for the Creator of man is\nthe Creator of science, and it is through that medium that man can see\nGod, as it were, face to face.\n\nCould a man be placed in a situation, and endowed with power of vision\nto behold at one view, and to contemplate deliberately, the structure\nof the universe, to mark the movements of the several planets, the\ncause of their varying appearances, the unerring order in which they\nrevolve, even to the remotest comet, their connection and dependence on\neach other, and to know the system of laws established by the Creator,\nthat governs and regulates the whole; he would then conceive, far\nbeyond what any church theology can teach him, the power, the wisdom,\nthe vastness, the munificence of the Creator. He would then see that\nall the knowledge man has of science, and that all the mechanical arts\nby which he renders his situation comfortable here, are derived from\nthat source: his mind, exalted by the scene, and convinced by the fact,\nwould increase in gratitude as it increased in knowledge: his religion\nor his worship would become united with his improvement as a man: any\nemployment he followed that had connection with the principles of the\ncreation,\u2014as everything of agriculture, of science, and of the\nmechanical arts, has,\u2014would teach him more of God, and of the gratitude\nhe owes to him, than any theological Christian sermon he now hears.\nGreat objects inspire great thoughts; great munificence excites great\ngratitude; but the grovelling tales and doctrines of the Bible and the\nTestament are fit only to excite contempt.\n\nThough man cannot arrive, at least in this life, at the actual scene I\nhave described, he can demonstrate it, because he has knowledge of the\nprinciples upon which the creation is constructed. We know that the\ngreatest works can be represented in model, and that the universe can\nbe represented by the same means. The same principles by which we\nmeasure an inch or an acre of ground will measure to millions in\nextent. A circle of an inch diameter has the same geometrical\nproperties as a circle that would circumscribe the universe. The same\nproperties of a triangle that will demonstrate upon paper the course of\na ship, will do it on the ocean; and, when applied to what are called\nthe heavenly bodies, will ascertain to a minute the time of an eclipse,\nthough those bodies are millions of miles distant from us. This\nknowledge is of divine origin; and it is from the Bible of the creation\nthat man has learned it, and not from the stupid Bible of the church,\nthat teaches man nothing. [The Bible-makers have undertaken to give us,\nin the first chapter of Genesis, an account of the creation; and in\ndoing this they have demonstrated nothing but their ignorance. They\nmake there to have been three days and three nights, evenings and\nmornings, before there was any sun; when it is the presence or absence\nof the sun that is the cause of day and night\u2014and what is called his\nrising and setting that of morning and evening. Besides, it is a\npuerile and pitiful idea, to suppose the Almighty to say, \u201cLet there be\nlight.\u201d It is the imperative manner of speaking that a conjuror uses\nwhen he says to his cups and balls, Presto, be gone\u2014and most probably\nhas been taken from it, as Moses and his rod is a conjuror and his\nwand. Longinus calls this expression the sublime; and by the same rule\nthe conjurer is sublime too; for the manner of speaking is expressively\nand grammatically the same. When authors and critics talk of the\nsublime, they see not how nearly it borders on the ridiculous. The\nsublime of the critics, like some parts of Edmund Burke\u2019s sublime and\nbeautiful, is like a windmill just visible in a fog, which imagination\nmight distort into a flying mountain, or an archangel, or a flock of\nwild geese.\u2014Author.]\n\nAll the knowledge man has of science and of machinery, by the aid of\nwhich his existence is rendered comfortable upon earth, and without\nwhich he would be scarcely distinguishable in appearance and condition\nfrom a common animal, comes from the great machine and structure of the\nuniverse. The constant and unwearied observations of our ancestors upon\nthe movements and revolutions of the heavenly bodies, in what are\nsupposed to have been the early ages of the world, have brought this\nknowledge upon earth. It is not Moses and the prophets, nor Jesus\nChrist, nor his apostles, that have done it. The Almighty is the great\nmechanic of the creation, the first philosopher, and original teacher\nof all science. Let us then learn to reverence our master, and not\nforget the labours of our ancestors.\n\nHad we, at this day, no knowledge of machinery, and were it possible\nthat man could have a view, as I have before described, of the\nstructure and machinery of the universe, he would soon conceive the\nidea of constructing some at least of the mechanical works we now have;\nand the idea so conceived would progressively advance in practice. Or\ncould a model of the universe, such as is called an orrery, be\npresented before him and put in motion, his mind would arrive at the\nsame idea. Such an object and such a subject would, whilst it improved\nhim in knowledge useful to himself as a man and a member of society, as\nwell as entertaining, afford far better matter for impressing him with\na knowledge of, and a belief in the Creator, and of the reverence and\ngratitude that man owes to him, than the stupid texts of the Bible and\nthe Testament, from which, be the talents of the preacher; what they\nmay, only stupid sermons can be preached. If man must preach, let him\npreach something that is edifying, and from the texts that are known to\nbe true.\n\nThe Bible of the creation is inexhaustible in texts. Every part of\nscience, whether connected with the geometry of the universe, with the\nsystems of animal and vegetable life, or with the properties of\ninanimate matter, is a text as well for devotion as for philosophy\u2014for\ngratitude, as for human improvement. It will perhaps be said, that if\nsuch a revolution in the system of religion takes place, every preacher\nought to be a philosopher. Most certainly, and every house of devotion\na school of science.\n\nIt has been by wandering from the immutable laws of science, and the\nlight of reason, and setting up an invented thing called \u201crevealed\nreligion,\u201d that so many wild and blasphemous conceits have been formed\nof the Almighty. The Jews have made him the assassin of the human\nspecies, to make room for the religion of the Jews. The Christians have\nmade him the murderer of himself, and the founder of a new religion to\nsupersede and expel the Jewish religion. And to find pretence and\nadmission for these things, they must have supposed his power or his\nwisdom imperfect, or his will changeable; and the changeableness of the\nwill is the imperfection of the judgement. The philosopher knows that\nthe laws of the Creator have never changed, with respect either to the\nprinciples of science, or the properties of matter. Why then is it to\nbe supposed they have changed with respect to man?\n\nI here close the subject. I have shown in all the foregoing parts of\nthis work that the Bible and Testament are impositions and forgeries;\nand I leave the evidence I have produced in proof of it to be refuted,\nif any one can do it; and I leave the ideas that are suggested in the\nconclusion of the work to rest on the mind of the reader; certain as I\nam that when opinions are free, either in matters of govemment or\nreligion, truth will finally and powerfully prevail.\n\nEND OF PART II","title":"The Writings of Thomas Paine \u2014 Volume 4 (1794-1796): The Age of Reason","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":72464}