Friedrich Schleiermacher's On Religion attempts to answer Christianity's "cultured despisers." Having read Schleiermacher and Paine, how do you think would Schleiermacher respond to Paine?

The age of reason : being an investigation of true and fabulous theology / by Thomas Paine. Paine, Thomas, 1737-1809. Philadelphia : Printed by James Carey, [1797?]

http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015078580787

Public Domain, Google-digitized http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd-google

We have determined this work to be in the public domain, meaning that it is not subject to copyright. Users are free to copy, use, and redistribute the work in part or in whole. It is possible that current copyright holders, heirs or the estate of the authors of individual portions of the work, such as illustrations or photographs, assert copyrights over these portions. Depending on the nature of subsequent use that is made, additional rights may need to be obtained independently of anything we can address. The digital images and OCR of this work were produced by Google, Inc. (indicated by a watermark on each page in the PageTurner). Google requests that the images and OCR not be re-hosted, redistributed or used commercially. The images are provided for educational, scholarly, non-commercial purposes.

s

.

i

A G E O F R E A S O N.

B E I N G A N

I N V E S T I G A T I O N

TR U E AN D of F A B U L O U S

T H E O L O G Y.

By T H OM A S PA I N E,

GITIZEN AND CULTIVATOR OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

—SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO CONGRESS IN

THE AMERICAN wAR ;—AND Author of THE works ENTITLED, “ common sense, AND RIGHTs of MAN.”– mammº ºm

P H I L A D E L P H I A :

PRINTED BY JAMES CAREY, No. 83, North Second-Street.

:* ·**ae

|| -

*

|<

.

|-

·| -

× |- |- *

g * |- |- ·+ .- -- -*

|- -- -- |- |-

·| -| -| -·

|- |- … ·} |- -

|- *- |- |-

|- *

,* |× **

,| -· *

*

·· →

·| -v

;| -- -- -

*· |- |- |- -- *

** |! � ** ** .* ·+

*| -·

Ł

ł- -- -· ·| -}

|- ·+

} ·+

… »

*• :+

+

+ ·

· ·· ·

·| -

** � |-

|- -

… |- ·- -- -- |- + –

�

} *· ·| × |- ~

**

*· *.

» ·

-

-· *· ··

*

*} *· *· ·~ … » � *

*}

•

� |- ·� -- -- |- ·

*| ×

•

• *.

� :- -- -* ·- -- -

-- -- .* |- ·

|- -

-| -· ~ ~ ,

�

·* → ·~

!··|- |- |-

|- →

·- -- -| -

*� |- |- ·→

·

|-

*« …

/*

*

·· *••

-- -- ··

·| -· *

+

*+ -- + |× |- + *�

,! ,→ ·** |- |- |- !t .| -

{ *· ·· |-

·→ … « *…

» … ·-

→

·* |- ·→

·· -* |-

→

·· () |- |- •

× ·· *

·

-· **

·! +

*| -|- |- *- -- -| -

+

*· !· |- ·-

-| -*

-* ** |- ·| -* … *| -

*} ·<

‘- -v *| -| -* ·«

»

*· ** |- *•

• *·

** |-

·- -- -+ t

:· *

:| -*

|- |- *

** |- *· |- � :| -* ··

·

·· …

•

·· |- ** |- ~ |- ·| -*

·| -| -| -*

*- ·* •

• *

· ·| --

-| -| -- --

|- ·| -· |- �

�*• |- *

a e |-

-- -- |-

-- --

|- ·| -

-

*, � � |-

|- *

,* .

» ·

:| -

*} -

-| � |-

·

·· |- ·

*| -

|- •

• -” … )·

|- →

·| -·

|-

·| -

|- 4 �

�

Bºx-ºfºrº Jºrºrºarº-º-ºry:Tºw

T O M Y

F E L L O w C 1 T I Z E N S

O F T H E

UN IT E D STAT E S OF AM E. R. I. C.A.

I PUT the following work under your protection. It contains my opinion upon Religion. You will do me the juſtice to remember, that I have always ſtrenuouſly ſupported the Right of every Man to his

own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes

a ſlave of himſelf to his preſent opinion, becauſe he precludes himſelf the right of changing it

.

The moſt formidable weapon againſt errors o f

every kind is Reaſon. I have never uſed any other, and I truſt I never ſhall.

Your affectionate friend and fellow citizen,

T H OMAS PA IN E.

Paris, 8th Pluvioſº,

Second Year o f

the French Republic, one and indiviſible.

January 27, O . S .

1794.

*

|-

-

-| -

|- |- ·

→

·| -

·* ·

·* ·

·

·

·

|-

*| -+ |-

|- |- |- |- ·| -| -

|- *

-| -

••

• |- ,

� ·

·- -- --

… |- |-

-| -| -

·* |- ·

-- -- ,

� |- |- |- |- |-

-- -- |- -- --

« |- *

·

|- } |- |-

|- *

*| -| -| -

-- -- -- -- •

• |- ·

·, � |- -

.| -; \

|-

·

-· ·

·| -· |- -

… |-

-- --

|- ·•

|- ·| -| -

|- -

-| -| -

|-

|- ·· |-

|-

|- -- -- |-

·

-- -- |- |- |- •

.

|- |- |- |- ·| -

|- -- -- { |- |-

:- -- -| -| -| -→

·| -

|- ··

·

·| -- -- -| -

-- -- -| -

+ • ·· +

|- |- ·| -

|- |- |- |- |- -- --

� |- |- |- |-

|- →

·· -« *· *

{

!

-* -- -- -

|- *

-· |- |-

|- |- |-

*-

*, � |- |- |- |-

-- -- |-

|- |-

·· |-

·· |- |-

|- |-

·

·| -

|- |- · |-

|- |- ·

•

*| -| -- -- -

·* ··

|-

� |- |-

→

·· |-

** -| -| -

-- --

|- ·| -

|-

*| -~

·| -

·| -

|- |-

|-

·

|-

*

|-

-

•

•••

• |- -

- -- -- • • •

•

•

•

• • • • • • • •

•

••

••

• |- -

-

-- -- -- -

-- -- •

•

• • |- _■

*-

3,

A G E O F R E A so N. ...tº 4 & ºtii C -

tº . . Eiſe tº i: ' ' . . . . .

-- : P Ag: R T I. ' " . . ."

. . . . . " . . * * * * * * . .

*

: … ºd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I T has been my intention, for ſeveral years paſt, to publiſh my

thoughts upon religion. I am well aware of the difficulties that attend the ſubjećt; and from that confideration had reſerved it to a

more advanced period o f

life. I intended it to be the laſt offering I

ſhould make to my fellow citizens o f

a llnations; and that at a time,

when the purity o f

the motive that induced me to it ,

could not

admit o f a queſtion, even b y

thoſe who mightdiſapprove thework.

The circumſtance that has now taken place in France, o f

the total

abolition o f

the whole national order o f

prieſthood, and o f

every

thing appertaining to compulſive ſyſtems o f religion, and compulſive

articles o f faith, has not only precipitated my intention, but

rendered a work o f

this kind exceedingly neceſſary; left, in the general wreck o

f

ſuperſtition, o f

falſe ſyſtems o f

government, and

falſe theology, w e

loſe fight o fmorality, o f

humanity, and o f

th e

theology that is true. -

A s

ſeveral o f

my colleagues, and others o f

my fellow citizens o f

France, have given m e

the example o f making their voluntary and

individual profeſſion o f faith, I alſo will makemine; and I do this

with a ll

that ſincerity and frankneſs with which the mind o f

man

communicates with itſelf. -

I believe in one God, and nomore; and I hope for happineſs beyond this life.

I believe the equality of man, and Ibelieve that religious duties conſiſt in doing juſtice, loving mercy, and endeavoring tomake our fellow creatures happy.

*

6 P A IN E 's WO R K S.

But left it ſhould be ſuppoſed that I believe many other things in addition to theſe, I ſhall, in theprogreſs of this work, declare the things I do not believe, andmy reaſons fo

r

not believing them. ..

I do not believe in the creed profeſſed b y

the Jewiſh church, by

the Roman church, b y

the Greek church, b y

the Turkiſh church,

b y

the Proteſtant church, nor b y

any church that I know of . My

own mind is my own church. - - All national inſtitutions o

f churches, whether Jewiſh, Chriſtian, o r Turkiſh, appear tome no other than human inventions ſe t

u p

to

terrify and enſlave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

I do not mean by this declaration to condemn thoſe who beiieve otherwiſe. They have the ſame right to their belief as I have to

mine. But it is neceſſary to the happineſs o fman, that h e

b ementally

faithful to himſelf. Infidelity does not confift in believing or indiſbe lieving: it conſiſts inprofeſſing to believe what he does not believe.

It is impoſſible to calculate the moral miſchief, if I may ſo

expreſs it ,

that mental lying ha s

produced in ſociety. When a

man has ſo fa r

corrupted and proſtituted the chaſtity o f

his mind, a s

to ſubſcribe his profeſſional belief to things h e

does not believe,

h e

has prepared himſelf fo r

the commiſſion o f

every other crime.

He takes u p

the trade o f a prieſt for the ſake o f gain, and in order

to qualify himſelf fo r

that trade, h e begins with a perjury. “Can

we conceive any thing more deſtructive tomorality than this 2

Soon after I had publiſhed the pamphlet, “ Common Sºnſ,” in

America, I ſaw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the ſyſtem o

f

government, would b e

followed b y a revolution in the

ſyſtem o f religion. The adulterous connexion o f

church and ſtate,

wherever it had taken place, whether Jewiſh, Chriſtian, o r Turkiſh,

had ſo effectually prohibited, b y

pains and penalties, every diſcuſſion

upon eſtabliſhed creeds, and upon firſt principles o f religion, that

until the ſyſtem o fgovernment ſhould be changed, thoſe ſahjects

could not b e brought fairly and openly before theworld : but that

whenever this ſhould b e done, a revolution in the ſyſtem o f

religion

would follow. Human inventions and prieſtcraft would b e detected;

and man would return to the pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief

e f

one God, and n o

more. -

Every national church o r religion has eſtabliſhed itſelf b y

pretend.

ing ſome ſpecial miſſion fromGodcommunicated to certain individuals.

The Jews have their Moſes; the Chriſtians their Jeſus Chriſt, their apoſtles and ſaints; and the Turks their Mahomet ; as if the way

to God was not open to every man alike. -

©

PART I. AGE. O. F. R E A SO N. 7.

. Each of thoſe churches ſhew certain books which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews ſay that their word of

God was given by God to Moſes, face to face; the Chriſtians ſay,

that their word of God came by divine inſpiration ; and the Turks. ſay that their word of God [the Koran] was brought by an Angel

from heaven. Each of thoſe churches accuſes the other of unbelief;

and, for my own part, I diſbelieve them all. - As it is neceſſary to fi

x right ideas to words, Iwill, before I

proceed further into the ſubject, offer ſome obſervations o n

th e

word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means ſomething

communicated immediately from God to man. - -

No one will deny or diſpute the power o f

the Almighty to make

ſuch a communication if he pleaſes. But admitting, for the ſake o f

a caſe, that ſomething hasbeen revealed to a certain perſon, and not

revealed to any other perſon, it is revelation to that perſon only.

When h e

tells it to a ſecond perſon, a ſecond to a third, a third to

a fourth, and ſo on, it ceaſes to be a revelation to a ll

thoſe perſons.

It is revelation to the firſt perſon only, and hearſay to every other; and conſequently they are not obliged to believe it

.

It is acontradićtion interms and ideas, to callany thing a revelation. that comes to u

s

a t

ſecond hand, either verbally o r

in writing.

Revelation is neceſſarily limited to the firſt communication. After this, it is only an account o

f

ſomething which that perſon ſays was

a revelation made to him; and though he may find himſelf obliged.

to believe it , it cannot be incumbent onme to believe it in the ſame:

manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that itwas made to him. - - -

When Moſes told the children o f

Iſrael that h e

received the two

tables o f

the commandments from the hand o f God, they were not

obliged to believe him, becauſe they had n o

other authority fo r

it .

than h is telling them ſo; and I have no other authority fo r it than

ſome hiſtorian tellingme ſ o ,

the commandments carrying n o internal,

evidence o f divinity with them. They contain ſome good moral

precepts, ſuch a s any man qualified to b e a law-giver, o r a legiſlator,

could produce himſelf, without having recourſe to ſupernatural intervention.*

* This is ,

however, neceſſary to except the declaration, which ſays,

thatGod viſits the fins o f

the father upon the children. It is contrary

to every principle o f

moral juſtice,

8 PA I N E's W O R K S.

When I am told that theKoran waswritten inheaven, and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes to near the ſame kind of hearſay evidence, and ſecond-hand authority, as the former. I did not ſee the angel myſelf, and therefore I have a right not to believe it. - w

When alſo I am told that awoman, called the Virgin Mary, ſaid, or gave out, that ſhe was with child, without any cohabitation

with a man, and that her betrothed huſband, Joſeph, ſaid, that an angel told him ſ

o , I have a right to believe them or not; ſuch a

circumſtance required a much ſtronger evidence than their bareword

for it :

but we have not even this; for neither Joſeph nor Mary

wrote any ſuch matter themſelves. It is only reported b y

others

that they ſaid ſo .

It is hearſay upon hearſay, and I do not chuſe

to reſt my belief upon ſuch evidence.

º

It is ,

however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the ſtory o

f

Jeſus Chriſt being the ſon o f

God. He was

born when the heathen mythology had ſtill ſome faſhion and repute

in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief o

f

ſuch a ſtory. Almoſt a ll

the extraordinary men that lived

under the heathenmythology, were reputed to be the ſons o f

ſome

o f

theirgods. Itwas not anew thing at that time to believe aman

to have been celeſtially begotten: the intercourſe o f

gods with

women was then a matter o f

familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds: the ſtory,

therefore, had nothing in it either new, wonderful, o r

obſcene: it

was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, o

r mythologiſts, and it was thoſe people only that believed it

.

The Jews, who had kept ſtrićtly to the belief o

f

one God, and n o more, and who had always rejećted the

heathenmythology, never credited the ſtory.

It is curious to obſerve how the theory of what is called the Chriſtian church, ſprung out o

f

the tail o f

the heathen mythology.

A direct incorporation took place in the firſt inſtance, b y

making the

reputed founder to b e celeſtially begotten. The trinity o f

gods that then followed, was n o

other than a redućtion o f

the former plurality,

which was about twenty o r thirty thouſand. The ſtatue o f Mary

ſucceeded the ſtatue o f

Diana o f Epheſus. The deification o f

'heroes, changed into the canonization o f

ſaints. Themythologiſts

had gods fo r

every thing: th e

Chriſtian mythologiſts had ſaints fo r

every thing. The church became as crowded with th e

one, a s the

pantheon had been with the other; and Rome was the place

o f

both."

PART I. A G E O F R EA SON. 9

The Chriſtian theory is little elſe than the idolatry of the ancient mythologiſts, accommodated to the purpoſes of power and revenue;

and it yet remains to reaſon and philoſophy to aboliſh the amphibi ous fraud.

Nothing that is here ſaid can apply, even with the moſt diſtant diſreſpect, to the real charaćter of Jeſus Chriſt. He was a virtuous

and an amiable man. The morality that he preached and praćtiſed

was of the moſt benevolent kind; and though fimilar ſyſtems of morality had been preached by Confucius, and by ſome of the

Greek philoſophers, many years before ; by the Quakers ſince;

and by many good men in a ll ages; it has not been exceeded by

any.

Jeſus Chriſt wrote n o

account o fhimſelf, o f

his birth, parentage,

o r

any thing elſe. Not a line o f

what is called the New Teſtament

is o f

his writing. The hiſtory o f

him is altogether the work o f

other people; and as to the account given o f

h is

reſurrečtion and

aſcenſion, it was the neceſſary counterpart to the ſtory o f

his birth.

His hiſtorians, having brought him into theworld in a ſupernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the ſame manner,

o r

the firſt part o f

the ſtory muſt have fallen to the ground.

The wretched contrivance with which this latter part is told,

exceeds every thing that went before it .

The firſt part, that o f

the miraculous conception, was for a thing that admitted o f pub

licity; and therefore the tellers of this part of the ſtory, had this advantage, that though they might not b

e credited, they could not

b e

detected. They could not be expected to prove it ,

becauſe it

was not one o f

thoſe things that admitted o f proof, and it was

impoſſible that the perſon o f

whom it was told, could prove it

himſelf.

But the reſurrečtion o f a dead perſon from the grave, and his

aſcenſion through the air, is a thing very different as to the

evidence it admits o f,

to the inviſible conception o f a child in the

womb. The reſurrection and aſcenſion, ſuppoſing them tohave taken place, admitted o

fpublic and ocular demonſtration, like that o f

the

aſcenfion o f a balloon, o r

the ſun a t

noon day, to a ll

Jeruſalem a t

leaſt. A thing which every body is required to believe, requires that the proof and evidence o f it ſhould be equal to all, and univerſal; and as the public viſibility o f

this laſt related ačt

was the only evidence that could give ſanétion to the former part,

the whole o f it falls to the ground, becauſe that evidence never was given. Inſtead o

f this, a ſmall number o f

perſons, not more than - * B

-

I c. PA I N E 's W O R K S.

eight or nine, are introduced asproxies fo r

the whole world, to ſay, they ſaw it

,

and a ll

the reſt o f

the world are called upon to believe

it .

But it appears that Thomas did not believe the reſurrection; and

a s they ſay, would not believe, without having ocular andmanual

demºnſtration himſelf. S o

neither will / ;

and the reaſon is equally

a sgood fo r

me, and fo r

every other perſon, a s

fo r

Thomas.

it is in vain to attempt to paiiate or diſguiſe this matter. The ſtory, ſo fa

r

a s

relates to the ſupernatural part, has every mark o f

fraud and impoſition ſtamped upon the face o f

it .

Who were the

authors o f it is as impoſſible for us now to know, as it is for us to be

aſſured, that thebooks inwhich the account is related, werewritten

b y

the perſons whoſe names they bear. The beſt ſurviving evidence

we now have, reſpecting this affair, is the Jews. They are regularly deſceni, d from the people who lived in the times this reſurrection

and aſcenſion is ſaid to have happened, and they ſay, it is wo t

true. It

has long appeared to m e a ſtrange inconſiſtency, to cite the Jews as a

proof ºf the truth o f

the ſtory. It is juſt the ſame as if aman were

to ſay, Iwill prove the truth of what I have toid you, b y

producing

the people who ſ ºy it is falſe. -

That ſuch aperſon as Jeſus Chriſt exiſted, and that hewas crucified,

which was themode o f

execution a t

that day, are hiſtorical relations

ſtrictiy within the limits o f probability. He preached moſt excellent

morality, and the equality o f man; but he preached alſo againſt the

corruptions and avarice o f

the Jewiſh prieſts; and this brought upon

him the hatred and vengeance o f

the whole order o f

prieſthood. The accuſation which thoſe prieſts brought againſt him, was that o

f

ſedition and conſpiracy againſt the Roman government, towhich

the Jews were then ſubject and tributary; and it is not improbable

that the Roman government might have ſome ſecret apprehenſion o f

the effects o f

h is doctrine, a s well as the Jewiſh prieſts; neither is

it improbable that Jeſus Chriſt had in contemplation the delivery o f

the Jewiſh nation from the bondage o f

the Romans. Between the two, however, this virtuous reformer and revolutioniſt loſt his life.

It isupon this plain narrative o f

facts, together with another caſe

I am going to mention, that the Chriſtian mythologiſts, calling themſelves the Chriſtian church, have erected their fable, which

for abſurditity and extravagance, is not exceeded b y

anything that

is to be found in the mythology o f

the ancients. w

The ancient mythologiſts tell that the race o f

giants made war againſt Jupiter, and that one o

f

them threw a n

hundred rocks againſt

him a t

one throw; that Jupiter defeated him with thunder, and

PART I. AG E OF R E A SO N. 1,w

*.

confined him afterwards underMount Etna; and that every time the giant turns himſelf, Mount Etna belches fire. It is here eaſy to ſee that the circumſtance of the mountain, that of it

s being a volcano;

fuggeſted the idea o f

the fable; and that the fable is made to fi t

and

wind itſelf u p

with that circumſtance.

TheChriſtian mythologiſts tell that theirSatan made war againſt

the Almighty, who defeated him, and confined him afterwards, not

under amountain, but in apit. It is here eaſy to ſee that the firſt fable ſuggeſted the idea o

f

the ſecond; for the fable o f Jupiter and

the Giants was told many hundred years before that o f

Satan.

Thus far the ancient and the Chriſtian mythologiſts differ very

little from each other. But the latter have contrived to carry the matter much farther. They have contrived to connect the fabulous

part o f

the ſtory o f

Jeſus Chriſt with the fable originating from

Mount Etna: and in order to make a ll parts. o f

the ſtory ti e

together, they have taken to their aid the traditions o f

the Jews;

for the Chriſtian mythology is made u p

partly from the ancient mythology, and partly from the Jewiſh traditions. -

, TheChriſtian mythologiſts, after having confined Satan in a pit,

were obliged to le t

him out again, to bring on the ſequel o f

the fable.

He is then introduced into the garden o f

Eden in the ſhape o f a

fnake, o r a ſerpent, and in that ſhape h e

enters into familiar conver

fationwith Eve, who is n o ways ſurpriſed to hear a ſnake talk;

and the iſſue o f

this téte-à-tête is ,

that h e perſuades her to eat a n

apple, and the eating o f

that apple, damns a ll

mankind.

After giving Satan this triumph over the whole creation, one would have ſuppoſed that the church mythologiſts would have been

kind enough to ſend him back again to the pit ; or, if they had not done this, that they would have put amountain upon him, (for they ſay that their faith can remove a mountain) o

r

have put him

under amountain, a s

the former mythologiſts had done, to prevent

his gettingagain among the women, and doing more miſchief. But

inſtead o f this, they leave him at large without evenobliging him to

give his parole. The ſecret o f

which is ,

that they could not d o

without him; and after being at the trouble o fmaking him, they

bribed him to ſtay. They promiſed him All the Jews, All the Turks b y

anticipation, nine-tenths o f

the world beſide, and

Mahomet into the bargain. After this, who can doubt the boun tifulneſs o f

the Chriſtian mythology

Having thus made an inſurrection and a battle in heaven, in

which none o f

the combatants could b e

either killed o r wounded–

B 2

12 PA IN E’s WO R K S.

put Satan into the pit—let him out again—given him a triumph

over the whole creation—damned a ll

mankind b y

the eating o f

a n

apple, theſe Chriſtian mythologiſts bring the twoends o f

their fable together. They repreſent this virtuous and amiable man, Jeſus Chriſt, to b

e

a t

once both God and man, and alſo the ſon o f God,

celeſtially begotten o n purpoſe to b e ſacrificed, becauſe, they ſay,

that Eve, in her longing, had eaten an apple. -

Putting aſide every thing that might excite laughter b y

it s

abſurdity, o r

deteſtation b y

it s

prophaneneſs, and confining ourſelves merely to a

n

examination o f

the parts, it is impoſſible to conceive

a ſtory more derogatory to the Almighty, more inconſiſtent with his wiſdom, more contradićtory to his power, than this ſtory is

.

In order to make for it a foundation to riſe upon, the inventors were under the neceſſity o

f giving to the being, whom they call Satan, a power equaliy as great, if not greater, than they attribute

to the Almighty. They have not only given him the power o f

liberating himſelf from the pit, after what they call his fall, but they have made that power increaſe afterwards to infinity. Before

his fall, they repreſent him only as an angel o f

limited exiſtence,

a s they repreſent the reſt. After his fall, he becomes, by their

account, omnipreſent. He exiſts every where, and a t

the ſame

time. He occupies the whole immenfity o f ſpace.

Not content with thisdeification o f

Satan, they repreſent him a s

defeating b y

ſtratagem, in the ſhape o f a n

animal o f

the creation,

a ll

the power and wiſdom o f

the Almighty. They repreſent him

a s having compelled th e

Almighty to th e

dire metaſty either o f

ſurrendering the whole o f

the creation to the government and ſovereignty o

f

this Satan, o r o f

capitulating for it s

redemption, b y

coming down upon earth, andexhibiting himſelf upon a croſs in the ſhape o

f aman, Had the inventors o f

this ſtory told it the contrary way, that is

,

had they repreſented the Almighty as compelling

Satan to exhibit himſelf o n a croſs in the ſhape o f a ſnake, a s

a

puniſhment fo r

his new tranſgreſſions, the ſtory would have been leſs abſurd, leſs contradićtory. But inſtead o f this, they make the tranſgreſſor triumph, and the Almighty fall.

That many good men have believed this ſtrange fable, and lived very good lives under that belief, (for credulity is not a crime) is

what I have no doubt of .

In the firſt place, they were educated to

believe it ,

and they would have believed any thing elſe in the ſame manner. ſhere are alſo many who have been ſ

o enthuſiaſtically

enraptured b y

what they conceived to be the infinite love o f

God to

Parr I. A G E of R E A soN. 13 man, inmaking a ſacrifice of himſelf, that the vehemence of the idea has forbidden and deterred them from examining into the abſurdity and profaneneſsof the ſtory. The more unnatural any thing is

,

the more it is capable o f

becoming the object o f

diſmal admiration. - -

*

But if objects for gratitude and admiration are our deſire, do they not preſent themſelves every hour to our eyes? Do we not ſee fair

creation prepared to receive u s

th e

inſtant w e

a re born; a world

furniſhed to our hand that coſt u snothing? Is it we that light u p

the ſun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance?

Whether w e

ſleep o rwake, the vaſt machinery o f

the univerſe ſtill goes on. Are theſe things, and the bleſfings they indicate in future, nothing to us? Can our groſs feelings b

e

excited b y n o

other ſubjećts

than tragedy and ſuicide? O r is the gloomy pride o f

man become ſo

intolerable, that nothing can flatter itbut a ſacrifice o f

theCreator?

I know that this bold inveſtigation will alarm many, but itwould

b e paying too great a compliment to their credulity to forbear it

upon that account. The times and the ſubječt demand it to bedone,

The ſuſpicion that the theory o f

what is called the Chriſtian church

is fabulous, isbecoming very extenſive in a ll countries; and it will

b e a conſolation tomen ſtaggering under that ſuſpicion, and doubting

what to believe, and what to diſbelieve, to ſee the ſubjećt freely

inveſtigated. I therefore paſs on to an examination of the books called the Qld and the New Teſtament.

Theſe books, beginning with Geneſis and ending with the Revelations, (which b

y

thebye is abook o f

riddles that requires a

revelation to explain it )

are, weare told, theword o f

God. It is

therefore proper for us toknow who told us ſ o ,

that we may know

what credit to give to the report. The anſwer to this queſtion is ,

that nobody can tell, except that we tell one another ſo .

The caſe, however, hiſtorically appears to b

e a s follows:—

When the church mythologiſts eſtabliſhed their ſyſtem, they

collected a ll

the writings they could find, andmanaged them as they pleaſed. It is a matter altogether o

f

uncertainty to us, whether

ſuch o f

thewritings asnow appear, under the name o f

theOld and the New Teſtament, are in the ſame ſtate in which thoſe colle&tors

ſay they found them; o r

whether they added, altered, abridged,

o r

dreſſed them up.

B e

this as itmay, they decided b y

vote which o f

the books out

o f

the collection they had made, ſhould b e

the word o f

God, and

which ſhould not. They rejećted ſeveral; they voted others to b e

*. -

#4 PA I N E 's WO R K S.

doubtful, ſuch as the books called the Apocrypha; and thoſe books which had amajority of votes, were voted to be the word ofGod. Had they voted otherwiſe, a

ll

the people, fince calling themſelves Chriſtians, had believed otherwiſe; for the belief o

f

the one comes

from the vote o f

the other. Who the people were that did a ll this,

we know nothing of; they called themſelves b y

the general name o f

the church; and this is a ll

we know o f

the matter.

A s

w e

have n o

other external evidence o r authority fo r

believing

thoſe books to b e

th e

word o f God, than what I have mentioned,

which is n o

evidence o r authority a t all, I come, in the next place,

to examine the internal evidence contained in the books themſelves.

In the former part of this eſſay, I have ſpoken of revelation, I

now proceed further with that ſubject, fo r

th e

purpoſe o f applying

it to the books in queſtion.

Revelation is a communication o f

ſomething, which the perſon,

to whom that thing is revealed, did not know before. For if I

have done a thing, o r

ſeen it done, it needs no revelation to tell me I have done it

,

o r

ſeen it ,

nor to enable me to tell it ,

o r

to

write it. w

Revelation, therefore, cannot b e applied to any thing done upon

earth, o f

which man is himſelf the ačtor o r

the witneſs; and

eonſequently a ll

the hiſtorical and anecdotal part o f

the Bible,

which is almoſt the whole o f it ,

is not within the meaning and compaſs o

f

the word revelation, and therefore is not the word o f

God. -

When Sampſon ran off with the gate-poſts o fGaza, if he ever

did ſo (and whether h e

did o r

not is nothing to us) o r

when h e

viſited his Delilah, o r caught his foxes, o r

did any thing elſe,

what has revelation to d o

with theſe things If they were facts,

h e

could tell them himſelf; o r

his ſecretary, if he kept one, could write them, if they were worth either telling orwriting; and if

they were fićtions, revelation could not make them true; and

whether true o r not, we are neither the better nor the wiſer for

knowing them. When w e

contemplate the immenſity o f

that Being, who directs and governs th e

incomprehenſible whole, o f

which the utmoſt ken o f

human fight can diſcover but a part, w e

ought to feel ſhame a t calling ſuch paltry ſtories the word o f

God. -

A s

to the account o f

the creation, with which the book o f

Geneſis opens, it has al l

the appearance o f being a tradition which

the Iſraelites had among them before they came into Egypt; and

PART I. A G E O F R E A SO N. I 5

after their departure from that country, they put it at the head of their hiſtory, without telling, as it is moſt probable that they did not know how they came by it

.

Themanner in which the account opens, ſhews it to be traditionary. It begins abruptly. It is

nobody that ſpeaks. It is nobody that hears. It is addreſſed to

nobody. It has neither firſt, ſecond, or third perſon. It has every

criterion o f

being a tradition. It has no votcher. Moſes does not take it upon himſelf b

y

introducing it with the formality that

h e

uſes o n

other occaſions, ſuch a s

that o f ſaying, “ The Lord

Jºake unto Moſes, ſaying.”

Why it hasbeen called theMoſaic account o f

the creation, I am

a t a loſs to conceive. Moſes, I believe, was too good a judge of

ſuch ſubjects, to put his name to that account. He had beeneducated among the Egyptians, who were a people aswell ſkilled in ſcience,

and particularly in aſtronomy, as any people o f

their day; and the

filence and caution that Moſes obſerves, in not authenticating the account, is a good negative evidence that h

e neither told it

,

nor

believed it .

The caſe is ,

that every nation o f

people, has been

world makers, and the Iſraelites had as much right to ſe t

u p

the

trade o f world-making as any o f

the reſt; and a s

Moſes was not a n

Iſraelite, h e might not chuſe to contradićt the tradition. The

account, however, is harmleſs; and this ismore than can b e

ſaid

formany other parts o f

the Bible.

Whenever w e

read the obſcene ſtories, the voluptuous debauch eries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindićtive neſs, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be

more conſiſtent that we called it the word o f a demon, than the

word o f

God. It is a hiſtory o f

wickedneſs, that has ſerved to

corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, fo r

my own part, I fincerely deteſt it

,

a s I deteſt every thing that is cruel.

We ſcarcely meet with any thing, a few phraſes excepted, but what deſerves either our abhorrence o

r

our contempt, till we come to

the miſcellaneous parts o f

the Bible. In the anonymous publications,

the Pſalms and the Book o f Job, more particularly in the latter,

we find a great deal o f

elevated ſentiment reverentially expreſſed

o f

the power and benignity o f

the Almighty; but they ſtand on

n o higher rank than many other compoſitions o n

fimilar ſubjećts,

a s well before that time as ſince.

The proverbs, which are ſaid to be Solomon's, though moſt probably a collection [becauſe they diſcover a knowledge o f life,

which his fituatiou excluded him from knowing] are an inſtructive

º