74 page printout From page 43 to 116 THE AGE OF REASON. PART II. 1795 PREFACE. I HAVE ment
74 page printout
From page 43 to 116
THE AGE OF REASON.
PART II.
1795
PREFACE.
I HAVE mentioned in the former part of The Age of Reason that
it had long been my intention to publish my thoughts upon Religion;
but that I had originally reserved it to a later period in life,
intending it to be the last work I should undertake. The
circumstances, however, which existed in France in the latter end
of the year 1793, determined me to delay it no longer. The just and
humane principles of the Revolution which Philosophy had first
diffused, had been departed from. The Idea, always dangerous to
Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, -- that priests could
forgive sins, -- though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted
the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the
commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church
persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals,
stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the
Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends
destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to
believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger
was approaching myself.
Under these disadvantages, I began the former part of the Age
of Reason; I had, besides, neither Bible nor Testament [It must be
borne in mind that throughout this work Paine generaly means by
"Bible" only the Old Testamut, and speaks of the Now as the
"Testament." -- Editor.] to refer to, though I was writing against
both; nor could I procure any; notwithstanding which I have
produced a work that no Bible Believer, though writing at his ease
and with a Library of Church Books about him, can refute. Towards
the latter end of December of that year, a motion was made and
carried, to exclude foreigners from the Convention. There were but
two, Anacharsis Cloots and myself; and I saw I was particularly
pointed at by Bourdon de l'Oise, in his speech on that motion.
Conceiving, after this, that I had but a few days of liberty,
I sat down and brought the work to a close as speedily as possible;
and I had not finished it more than six hours, in the state it has
since appeared, [This is an allusion to the essay which Paine
wrote at an earlier part of 1793. See Introduction. -- Editor.]
before a guard came there, about three in the morning, with an
order signed by the two Committees of Public Safety and Surety
General, for putting me in arrestation as a foreigner, and
conveying me to the prison of the Luxembourg. I contrived, in my
way there, to call on Joel Barlow, and I put the Manuscript of the
work into his hands, as more safe than in my possession in prison;
and not knowing what might be the fate in France either of the
writer or the work, I addressed it to the protection of the
citizens of the United States.
It is justice that I say, that the guard who executed this
order, and the interpreter to the Committee of General Surety, who
accompanied them to examine my papers, treated me not only with
civility, but with respect. The keeper of the 'Luxembourg, Benoit,
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
43
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
a man of good heart, shewed to me every friendship in his power, as
did also all his family, while he continued in that station. He was
removed from it, put into arrestation, and carried before the
tribunal upon a malignant accusation, but acquitted.
After I had been in Luxembourg about three weeks, the
Americans then in Paris went in a body to the Convention to reclaim
me as their countryman and friend; but were answered by the
President, Vadier, who was also President of the Committee of
Surety General, and had signed the order for my arrcstation, that
I was born in England. [These excited Americans do not seem to
have understood or reported the most important item in Vadeer's
reply, namely that their application was "unofficial," i.e. not
made through or sanctioned by Gouverneur Morris, American Minister.
For the detailed history of all this see vol. iii. -- Editor.] I
heard no more, after this, from any person out of the walls of the
prison, till the fall of Robespierre, on the 9th of Thermidor --
July 27, 1794.
About two months before this event, I was seized with a fever
that in its progress had every symptom of becoming mortal, and from
the effects of which I am not recovered. It was then that I
remembered with renewed satisfaction, and congratulated myself most
sincerely, on having written the former part of The Age of Reason.
I had then but little expectation of surviving, and those about me
had less. I know therefore by experience the conscientious trial of
my own principles.
I was then with three chamber comrades: Joseph Vanheule of
Bruges, Charles Bastfni, and Michael Robyns of Louvain. The
unceasing and anxious attention of these three friends to me, by
night and day, I remember with gratitude and mention with pleasure.
It happened that a physician (Dr. Graham) and a surgeon, (Mr.
Bond,) part of the suite of General O'Hara, [The officer who at
Yorktown, Virginia, carried out the sword of Cornwallis for
surrender, and satirically offered it to Rochambcau instead of
Washington. Paine loaned him 300 pounds when he (O'Hara) left the
prison, the money he had concealed in the lock of his cell-door. --
Edifor.] were then in the Luxembourg: I ask not myself whether it
be convenient to them, as men under the English Government, that I
express to them my thanks; but I should reproach myself if I did
not; and also to the physician of the Luxembourg, Dr. Markoski.
I have some reason to believe, because I cannot discover any
other, that this illness preserved me in existence. Among the
papers of Robespierre that were examined and reported upon to the
Convention by a Committee of Deputies, is a note in the hand
writing of Robespierre, in the following words:
"Ddmander que Thomas Paine soit decrete d'accusation,
pour l'interet de l'Amerique autant que de la France."
[Demand that Thomas Paine be decreed of accusation, for
the interest of America, as well as of France.]
From what cause it was that the intention was not put in
execution, I know not, and cannot inform myself; and therefore I
ascribe it to impossibility, on account of that illness.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
44
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
The Convention, to repair as much as lay in their power the
injustice I had sustained, invited me publickly and unanimously to
return into the Convention, and which I accepted, to shew I could
bear an injury without permitting it to injure my principles or my
disposition. It is not because right principles have been violated,
that they are to be abandoned.
I have seen, since I have been at liberty, several
publications written, some in America, and some in England, as
answers to the former part of "The Age of Reason." If the authors
of these can amuse themselves by so doing, I shall not interrupt
them, They may write against the work, and against me, as much as
they please; they do me more service than they intend, and I can
have no objection that they write on. They will find, however, by
this Second Part, without its being written as an answer to them,
that they must return to their work, and spin their cobweb over
again. The first is brushed away by accident.
They will now find that I have furnished myself with a Bible
and Testament; and I can say also that I have found them to be much
worse books than I had conceived. If I have erred in any thing, in
the former part of the Age of Reason, it has been by speaking
better of some parts than they deserved.
I observe, that all my opponents resort, more or less, to what
they call Scripture Evidence and Bible authority, to help them out.
They are so little masters of the subject, as to confound a dispute
about authenticity with a dispute about doctrines; I will, however,
put them right, that if they should be disposed to write any more,
they may know how to begin.
THOMAS PAINE.
October, 1795.
**** ****
CHAPTER I.
THE OLD TESTAMENT.
IT has often been said that any thing may be proved from the
Bible; but before any thing can be admitted as proved by Bible, the
Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not
true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority,
and cannot be admitted as proof of any thing.
It has been the practice of all Christian commentators on the
Bible, and of all Christian priests and preachers, to impose the
Bible on the world as a mass of truth, and as the word of God; they
have disputed and wrangled, and have anathematized each other about
the supposeable meaning of particular parts and passages therein;
one has said and insisted that such a passage meant such a thing,
another that it meant directly the contrary, and a third, that it
meant neither one nor the other, but something different from both;
and this they have called undffstanding the Bible.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
45
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
It has happened, that all the answers that I have seen to the
former part of 'The Age of Reason' have been written by priests:
and these pious men, like their predecessors, contend and wrangle,
and understand the Bible; each understands it differently, but each
understands it best; and they have agreed in nothing but in telling
their readers that Thomas Paine understands it not.
Now instead of wasting their time, and heating themselves in
fractious disputations about doctrinal points drawn from the Bible,
these men ought to know, and if they do not it is civility to
inform them, that the first thing to be understood is, whether
there is sufficient authority for believing the Bible to be the
word of God, or whether there is not?
There are matters in that book, said to be done by the express
command of God, that are as shocking to humanity, and to every idea
we have of moral justice, as any thing done by Robespierre, by
Carrier, by Joseph le Bon, in France, by the English government in
the East Indies, or by any other assassin in modern times. When we
read in the books ascribed to Moses, Joshua, etc., that they (the
Israelites) came by stealth upon whole nations of people, who, as
the history itself shews, had given them no offence; that they put
all those nations to the sword; that they spared neither age nor
infancy; that they utterly destroyed men, women and children; that
they left not a soul to breathe; expressions that are repeated over
and over again in those books, and that too with exulting ferocity;
are we sure these things are facts? are we sure that the Creator of
man commissioned those things to be done? Are we sure that the
books that tell us so were written by his authority?
It is not the antiquity of a tale that is an evidence of its
truth; on the contrary, it is a symptom of its being fabulous; for
the more ancient any history pretends to be, the more it has the
resemblance of a fable. The origin of every nation is buried in
fabulous tradition, and that of the Jews is as much to be suspected
as any other.
To charger the commission of things upon the Almighty, which
in their own nature, and by every rule of moral justice, are
crimes, as all assassination is, and more especially the
assassination of infants, is matter of serious concern. The Bible
tells us, that those assassinations were done by the express
command of God. To believe therefore the Bible to be true, we must
unbelieve all our belief in the moral justice of God; for wherein
could crying or smiling infants offend? And to read the Bible
without horror, we must undo every thing that is tender,
sympathising, and benevolent in the heart of man. Speaking for
myself, if I had no other evidence that the Bible is fabulous, than
the sacrifice I must make to believe it to be true, that alone
would be sufficient to determine my choice.
But in addition to all the moral evidence against the Bible,
I will, in the progress of this work, produce such other evidence
as even a priest cannot deny; and show, from that evidence, that
the Bible is not entitled to credit, as being the word of God.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
46
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
But, before I proceed to this examination, I will show wherein
the Bible differs from all other ancient writings with respect to
the nature of the evidence necessary to establish its authenticity;
and this is is the more proper to be done, because the advocates of
the Bible, in their answers to the former part of 'The Age of
Reason,' undertake to say, and they put some stress thereon, that
the authenticity of the Bible is as well established as that of any
other ancient book: as if our belief of the one could become any
rule for our belief of the other.
I know, however, but of one ancient book that authoritatively
challenges universal consent and belief, and that is Euclid's
Elements of Geometry; [Euclid, according to chronological history,
lived three hundred years before Christ, and about one hundred
before Archimedes; he was of the city of Alexandria, in Egypt. --
Author.] and the reason is, because it is a book of self-evident
demonstration, entirely independent of its author, and of every
thing relating to time, place, and circumstance. The matters
contained in that book would have the same authority they now have,
had they been written by any other person, or had the work been
anonymous, or had the author never been known; for the identical
certainty of who was the author makes no part of our belief of the
matters contained in the book. But it is quite otherwise with
respect to the books ascribed to Moses, to Joshua, to Samuel, etc.:
those are books of testimony, and they testify of things naturally
incredible; and therefore the whole of our belief, as to the
authenticity of those books, rests, in the first place, upon the
certainty that they were written by Moses, Joshua, and Samuel;
secondly, upon the credit we give to their testimony. We may
believe the first, that is, may believe the certainty of the
authorship, and yet not the testimony; in the same manner that we
may believe that a certain person gave evidence upon a case, and
yet not believe the evidence that he gave. But if it should be
found that the books ascribed to Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, were
not written by Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, every part of the
authority and authenticity of those books is gone at once; for
there can be no such thing as forged or invented testimony; neither
can there be anonymous testimony, more especially as to things
naturally incredible; such as that of talking with God face to
face, or that of the sun and moon standing still at the command of
a man.
The greatest part of the other ancient books are works of
genius; of which kind are those ascribed to Homer, to Plato, to
Aristotle, to Demosthenes, to Cicero, etc. Here again the author is
not an essential in the credit we give to any of those works; for
as works of genius they would have the same merit they have now,
were they anonymous. Nobody believes the Trojan story, as related
by Homer, to be true; for it is the poet only that is admired, and
the merit of the poet will remain, though the story be fabulous.
But if we disbelieve the matters related by the Bible authors
(Moses for instance) as we disbelieve the things related by Homer,
there remains nothing of Moses in our estimation, but an imposter.
As to the ancient historians, from Herodotus to Tacitus, we credit
them as far as they relate things probable and credible, and no
further: for if we do, we must believe the two miracles which
Tacitus relates were performed by Vespasian, that of curing a lame
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
47
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
man, and a blind man, in just the same manner as the same things
are told of Jesus Christ by his historians. We must also believe
the miracles cited by Josephus, that of the sea of Pamphilia
opening to let Alexander and his army pass, as is related of the
Red Sea in Exodus. These miracles are quite as well authenticated
as the Bible miracles, and yet we do not believe them; consequently
the degree of evidence necessary to establish our belief of things
naturally incredible, whether in the Bible or elsewhere, is far
greater than that which obtains our belief to natural and probable
things; and therefore the advocates for the Bible have no claim to
our belief of the Bible because that we believe things stated in
other ancient writings; since that we believe the things stated in
those writings no further than they are probable and credible, or
because they are self-evident, like Euclid; or admire them because
they are elegant, like Homer; or approve them because they are
sedate, like Plato; or judicious, like Aristotle.
Having premised these things, I proceed to examine the
authenticity of the Bible; and I begin with what are called the
five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy. My intention is to shew that those books are spurious,
and that Moses is not the author of them; and still further, that
they were not written in the time of Moses nor till several hundred
years afterwards; that they are no other than an attempted history
of the life of Moses, and of the times in which he is said to have
lived, and also of the times prior thereto, written by some very
ignorant and stupid pretenders to authorship, several hundred years
after the death of Moses; as men now write histories of things that
happened, or are supposed to have happened, several hundred or
several thousand years ago.
The evidence that I shall produce in this case is from the
books themselves; and I will confine myself to this evidence only.
Were I to refer for proofs to any of the ancient authors, whom the
advocates of the Bible call prophane authors, they would controvert
that authority, as I controvert theirs: I will therefore meet them
on their own ground, and oppose them with their own weapon, the
Bible.
In the first place, there is no affirmative evidence that
Moses is the author of those books; and that he is the author, is
altogether an unfounded opinion, got abroad nobody knows how. The
style and manner in which those books are written give no room to
believe, or even to suppose, they were written by Moses; for it is
altogether the style and manner of another person speaking of
Moses. In Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, (for every thing in
Genesis is prior to the times of Moses and not the least allusion
is made to him therein,) the whole, I say, of these books is in the
third person; it is always, the Lord said unto Moses, or Moses said
unto the Lord; or Moses said unto the people, or the people said
unto Moses; and this is the style and manner that historians use in
speaking of the person whose lives and actions they are writing. It
may be said, that a man may speak of himself in the third person,
and, therefore, it may be supposed that Moses did; but supposition
proves nothing; and if the advocates for the belief that Moses
wrote those books himself have nothing better to advance than
supposition, they may as well be silent.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
48
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
But granting the grammatical right, that Moses might speak of
himself in the third person, because any man might speak of himself
in that manner, it cannot be admitted as a fact in those books,
that it is Moses who speaks, without rendering Moses truly
ridiculous and absurd: -- for example, Numbers xii. 3: "Now the man
Moses was very MEEK, above all the men which were on the face of
the earth." If Moses said this of himself, instead of being the
meekest of men, he was one of the most vain and arrogant coxcombs;
and the advocates for those books may now take which side they
please, for both sides are against them: if Moses was not the
author, the books are without authority; and if he was the author,
the author is without credit, because to boast of meekness is the
reverse of meekness, and is a lie in sentiment.
In Deuteronomy, the style and manner of writing marks more
evidently than in the former books that Moses is not the writer.
The manner here used is dramatical; the writer opens the subject by
a short introductory discourse, and then introduces Moses as in the
act of speaking, and when he has made Moses finish his harrangue,
he (the writer) resumes his own part, and speaks till he brings
Moses forward again, and at last closes the scene with an account
of the death, funeral, and character of Moses.
This interchange of speakers occurs four times in this book:
from the first verse of the first chapter, to the end of the fifth
verse, it is the writer who speaks; he then introduces Moses as in
the act of making his harrangue, and this continues to the end of
the 40th verse of the fourth chapter; here the writer drops Moses,
and speaks historically of what was done in consequence of what
Moses, when living, is supposed to have said, and which the writer
has dramatically rehearsed.
The writer opens the subject again in the first verse of the
fifth chapter, though it is only by saying that Moses called the
people of Isracl together; he then introduces Moses as before, and
continues him as in the act of speaking, to the end of the 26th
chapter. He does the same thing at the beginning of the 27th
chapter; and continues Moses as in the act of speaking, to the end
of the 28th chapter. At the 29th chapter the writer speaks again
through the whole of the first verse, and the first line of the
second verse, where he introduces Moses for the last time, and
continues him as in the act of speaking, to the end of the 33d
chapter.
The writer having now finished the rehearsal on the part of
Moses, comes forward, and speaks through the whole of the last
chapter: he begins by telling the reader, that Moses went up to the
top of Pisgah, that he saw from thence the land which (the writer
says) had been promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; that he,
Moses, died there in the land of Moab, that he buried him in a
valley in the land of Moab, but that no man knoweth of his
sepulchre unto this day, that is unto the time in which the writer
lived who wrote the book of Deuteronomy. The writer then tells us,
that Moses was one hundred and ten years of age when he died --
that his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated; and he
concludes by saying, that there arose not a prophet since in Israel
like unto Moses, whom, says this anonymous writer, the Lord knew
face to face.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
49
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
Having thus shewn, as far as grammatical evidence implics,
that Moses was not the writer of those books, I will, after making
a few observations on the inconsistencies of the writer of the book
of Deuteronomy, proceed to shew, from the historical and
chronological evidence contained in those books, that Moses was
not, because he could not be, the writer of them; and consequently,
that there is no authority for believing that the inhuman and
horrid butcheries of men, women, and children, told of in those
books, were done, as those books say they were, at the command of
God. It is a duty incumbent on every true deist, that he vindicates
the moral justice of God against the calumnies of the Bible.
The writer of the book of Deuteronomy, whoever he was, for it
is an anonymous work, is obscure, and also contradictory with
himself in the account he has given of Moses.
After telling that Moses went to the top of Pisgah (and it
does not appear from any account that he ever came down again) he
tells us, that Moses died there in the land of Moab, and that he
buried him in a valley in the land of Moab; but as there is no
antecedent to the pronoun he, there is no knowing who he was, that
did bury him. If the writer meant that he (God) buried him, how
should he (the writer) know it? or why should we (the readers)
believe him? since we know not who the writer was that tells us so,
for certainly Moses could not himself tell where he was buried.
The writer also tells us, that no man knoweth where the
sepulchre of Moses is unto this day, meaning the time in which this
writer lived; how then should he know that Moses was buried in a
valley in the land of Moab? for as the writer lived long after the
time of Moses, as is evident from his using the expression of unto
this day, meaning a great length of time after the death of Moses,
he certainly was not at his funeral; and on the other hand, it is
impossible that Moses himself could say that no man knoweth where
the sepulchre is unto this day. To make Moses the speaker, would be
an improvement on the play of a child that hides himself and cries
nobody can find me; nobody can find Moses.
This writer has no where told us how he came by the speeches
which he has put into the mouth of Moses to speak, and therefore we
have a right to conclude that he either composed them himself, or
wrote them from oral tradition. One or other of these is the more
probable, since he has given, in the fifth chapter, a table of
commandments, in which that called the fourth commandment is
different from the fourth commandment in the twentieth chapter of
Exodus. In that of Exodus, the reason given for keeping the seventh
day is, because (says the commandment) God made the heavens and the
earth in six days, and rested on the seventh; but in that of
Deuteronomy, the reason given is, that it was the day on which the
children of Israel came out of Egypt, and therefore, says this
commandment, the Lord thy God commanded thee to kee the sabbath-day
This makes no mention of the creation, nor that of the coming out
of Egypt. There are also many things given as laws of Moses in this
book, that are not to be found in any of the other books; among
which is that inhuman and brutal law, xxi. 18, 19, 20, 21, which
authorizes parents, the father and the mother, to bring their own
children to have them stoned to death for what it pleased them to
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
50
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
call stubbornness. -- But priests have always been fond of
preaching up Deuteronomy, for Deuteronomy preaches up tythes; and
it is from this book, xxv. 4, they have taken the phrase, and
applied it to tything, that "thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he
treadeth Out the corn:" and that this might not escape observation,
they have noted it in the table of contents at the head of the
chapter, though it is only a single verse of less than two lines.
O priests! priests! ye are willing to be compared to an ox, for the
sake of tythes. [An elegant pocket edition of Paine's Theological
Works (London. R. Carlile, 1822) has in its title a picture of
Paine, as a Moses in evening dress, unfolding the two tables of his
"Age of Reason" to a famer from whom the Bishop of Llandaff (who
replied to this work) has taken a sheaf and a lamb which he is
carrying to a church at the summit of a well stocked hill. --
Editor.] -- Though it is impossible for us to know identically who
the writer of Deuteronomy was, it is not difficult to discover him
professionally, that he was some Jewish priest, who lived, as I
shall shew in the course of this work, at least three hundred and
fifty years after the time of Moses.
I come now to speak of the historical and chronological
evidence. The chronology that I shall use is the Bible chronology;
for I mean not to go out of the Bible for evidence of any thing,
but to make the Bible itself prove historically and chronologically
that Moses is not the author of the books ascribed to him. It is
therefore proper that I inform the readers (such an one at least as
may not have the opportunity of knowing it) that in the larger
Bibles, and also in some smaller ones, there is a series of
chronology printed in the margin of every page for the purpose of
shawing how long the historical matters stated in each page
happened, or are supposed to have happened, before Christ, and
consequently the distance of time between one historical
circumstance and another.
I begin with the book of Genesis. -- In Genesis xiv., the
writer gives an account of Lot being taken prisoner in a battle
between the four kings against five, and carried off; and that when
the account of Lot being taken came to Abraham, that he armed all
his household and marched to rescue Lot from the captors; and that
he pursued them unto Dan. (ver. 14.)
To shew in what manner this expression of Pursuing them unto
Dan applies to the case in question, I will refer to two
circumstances, the one in America, the other in France. The city
now called New York, in America, was originally New Amsterdam; and
the town in France, lately called Havre Marat, was before called
Havre-de-Grace. New Amsterdam was changed to New York in the year
1664; Havre-de-Grace to Havre Marat in the year 1793. Should,
therefore, any writing be found, though without date, in which the
name of New-York should be mentioned, it would be certain evidence
that such a writing could not have been written before, and must
have been written after New Amsterdam was changed to New York, and
consequently not till after the year 1664, or at least during the
course of that year. And in like manner, any dateless writing, with
the name of Havre Marat, would be certain evidence that such a
writing must have been written after Havre-de-Grace became Havre
Marat, and consequently not till after the year 1793, or at least
during the course of that year.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
51
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
I now come to the application of those cases, and to show that
there was no such place as Dan till many years after the death of
Moses; and consequently, that Moses could not be the writer of the
book of Genesis, where this account of pursuing them unto Dan is
given.
The place that is called Dan in the Bible was originally a
town of the Gentiles, called Laish; and when the tribe of Dan
seized upon this town, they changed its name to Dan, in
commemoration of Dan, who was the father of that tribe, and the
great grandson of Abraham.
To establish this in proof, it is necessary to refer from
Genesis to chapter xviii. of the book called the Book of judges. It
is there said (ver. 27) that "they (the Danites) came unto Laish to
a people that were quiet and secure, and they smote them with the
edge of the sword [the Bible is filled with murder] and burned the
city with fire; and they built a city, (ver. 28,) and dwelt
therein, and [ver. 29,] they called the name of the city Dan, after
the name of Dan, their father; howbeit the name of the city was
Laish at the first."
This account of the Danites taking possession of Laish and
changing it to Dan, is placed in the book of Judges immediately
after the death of Samson. The death of Samson is said to have
happened B.C. 1120 and that of Moses B.C. 1451; and, therefore,
according to the historical arrangement, the place was not called
Dan till 331 years after the death of Moses.
There is a striking confusion between the historical and the
chronological arrangement in the book of judges. The last five
chapters, as they stand in the book, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, are put
chronologically before all the preceding chapters; they are made to
be 28 years before the 16th chapter, 266 before the 15th, 245
before the 13th, 195 before the 9th, go before the 4th, and 15
years before the 1st chapter. This shews the uncertain and fabulous
state of the Bible. According to the chronological arrangement, the
taking of Laish, and giving it the name of Dan, is made to be
twenty years after the death of Joshua, who was the successor of
Moses; and by the historical order, as it stands in the book, it is
made to be 306 years after the death of Joshua, and 331 after that
of Moses; but they both exclude Moses from being the writer of
Genesis, because, according to either of the statements, no such a
place as Dan existed in the time of Moses; and therefore the writer
of Genesis must have been some person who lived after the town of
Laish had the name of Dan; and who that person was nobody knows,
and consequently the book of Genesis is anonymous, and without
authority.
I come now to state another point of historical and
chronological evidence, and to show therefrom, as in the preceding
case, that Moses is not the author of the book of Genesis.
In Genesis xxxvi. there is given a genealogy of the sons and
descendants of Esau, who are called Edomites, and also a list by
name of the kings of Edom; in enumerating of which, it is said,
verse 31, "And these are the kings that reigned in Edom, before
there reigned any king over the children of Israel."
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
52
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
Now, were any dateless writing to be found, in which, speaking
of any past events, the writer should say, these things happened
before there was any Congress in America, or before there was any
Convention in France, it would be evidence that such writing could
not have been written before, and could only be written after there
was a Congress in America or a Convention in France, as the case
might be; and, consequently, that it could not be written by any
person who died before there was a Congress in the one country, or
a Convention in the other.
Nothing is more frequent, as well in history as in
conversation, than to refer to a fact in the room of a date: it is
most natural so to do, because a fact fixes itself in the memory
better than a date; secondly, because the fact includes the date,
and serves to give two ideas at once; and this manner of speaking
by circumstances implies as positively that the fact alluded to is
past, as if it was so expressed. When a person in speaking upon any
matter, says, it was before I was married, or before my son was
born, or before I went to America, or before I went to France, it
is absolutely understood, and intended to be understood, that he
has been married, that he has had a son, that he has been in
America, or been in France. Language does not admit of using this
mode of expression in any other sense; and whenever such an
expression is found anywhere, it can only be understood in the
sense in which only it could have been used.
The passage, therefore, that I have quoted -- that "these are
the kings that reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king over
the children of Israel," could only have been written after the
first king began to reign over them; and consequently that the book
of Genesis, so far from having been written by Moses, could not
have been written till the time of Saul at least. This is the
positive sense of the passage; but the expression, any king,
implies more kings than one, at least it implies two, and this will
carry it to the time of David; and, if taken in a general sense, it
carries itself through all times of the Jewish monarchy.
Had we met with this verse in any part of the Bible that
professed to have been written after kings began to reign in
Israel, it would have been impossible not to have seen the
application of it. It happens then that this is the case; the two
books of Chronicles, which give a history of all the kings of
Israel, are professedly, as well as in fact, written after the
Jewish monarchy began; and this verse that I have quoted, and all
the remaining verses of Genesis xxxvi. are, word for word, In 1
Chronicles i., beginning at the 43d verse.
It was with consistency that the writer of the Chronicles
could say as he has said, 1 Chron. i. 43, These are the kings that
reigned in Edom, before there reigned any king ever the children of
Israel," because he was going to give, and has given, a list of the
kings that had reigned in Israel; but as it is impossible that the
same expression could have been used before that period, it is as
certain as any thing can be proved from historical language, that
this part of Genesis is taken from Chronicles, and that Genesis is
not so old as Chronicles, and probably not so old as the book of
Homer, or as AEsop's Fables; admitting Homer to have been, as the
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
53
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
tables of chronology state, contemporary with David or Solomon, and
AEsop to have lived about the end of the Jewish monarchy.
Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author,
on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has
stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book
of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of
downright lies. The story of Eve and the serpent, and of Noah and
his ark, drops to a level with the Arabian Tales, without the merit
of being entertaining, and the account of men living to eight and
nine hundred years becomes as fabulous as the immortality of the
giants of the Mythology.
Besides, the character of Moses, as stated in the Bible, is
the most horrid that can be imagined. If those accounts be true, he
was the wretch that first began and carried on wars on the score or
on the pretence of religion; and under that mask, or that
infatuation, committed the most unexampled atrocities that are to
be found in the history of any nation. Of which I will state only
one instance:
When the Jewish army returned from one of their plundering and
murdering excursions, the account goes on as follows (Numbers xxxi.
13): "And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the
congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp; and Moses
was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over
thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle;
and Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive?"
behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of
Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor,
and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now
therefore, "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
woman that hath known a man by lying with him; but all the women-
children that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive
for Yourselves."
Among the detestable villains that in any period of the world
have disgraced the name of man, it is impossible to find a greater
than Moses, if this account be true. Here is an order to butcher
the boys, to massacre the mothers, and debauch the daughters.
Let any mother put herself in the situation of those mothers,
one child murdered, another destined to violation, and herself in
the hands of an executioner: let any daughter put herself in the
situation of those daughters, destined as a prey to the murderers
of a mother and a brother, and what will be their feelings? It is
in vain that we attempt to impose upon nature, for nature will have
her course, and the religion that tortures all her social ties is
a false religion.
After this detestable order, follows an account of the plunder
taken, and the manner of dividing it; and here it is that the
profanenegs of priestly hypocrisy increases the catalogue of
crimes. Verse 37, "And the Lord's tribute of the sheep was six
hundred and threescore and fifteen; and the beeves were thirty and
six thousand, of which the Lord's tribute was threescore and
twelve; and the asses were thirty thousand, of which the Lord's
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
54
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
tribute was threescore and one; and the persons were sixteen
thousand, of which the Lord's tribute was thirty and two." In
short, the matters contained in this chapter, as well as in many
other parts of the Bible, are too horrid for humanity to read, or
for decency to hear; for it appears, from the 35th verse of this
chapter, that the number of women-children consigned to debauchery
by the order of Moses was thirty-two thousand.
People in general know not what wickedness there is in this
pretended word of God. Brought up in habits of superstition, they
take it for granted that the Bible is true, and that it is good;
they permit themselves not to doubt of it, and they carry the ideas
they form of the benevolence of the Almighty to the book which they
have been taught to believe was written by his authority. Good
heavens! it is quite another thing, it is a book of lies,
wickedness, and blasphemy; for what can be greater blasphemy, than
to ascribe the wickedness of man to the orders of the Almighty!
But to return to my subject, that of showing that Moses is not
the author of the books ascribed to him, and that the Bible is
spurious. The two instances I have already given would be
sufficient, without any additional evidence, to invalidate the
authenticity of any book that pretended to be four or five hundred
years more ancient than the matters it speaks of, refers to, them
as facts; for in the case of pursuing them unto Dan, and of the
kings that reigned over the children of Israel; not even the flimsy
pretence of prophecy can be pleaded. The expressions are in the
preter tense, and it would be downright idiotism to say that a man
could prophecy in the preter tense.
But there are many other passages scattered throughout those
books that unite in the same point of evidence. It is said in
Exodus, (another of the books ascribed to Moses,) xvi. 35: "And the
children of Israel did eat manna until they came to a land
inhabited; they did eat manna untit they came unto the borders of
the land of Canaan."
Whether the children of Israel ate manna or not, or what manna
was, or whether it was anything more than a kind of fungus or small
mushroom, or other vegetable substance common to that part of the
country, makes no part of my argument; all that I mean to show is,
that it is not Moses that could write this account, because the
account extends itself beyond the life time of Moses. Moses,
according to the Bible, (but it is such a book of lies and
contradictions there is no knowing which part to believe, or
whether any) died in the wilderness, and never came upon the
borders of 'the land,of Canaan; and consequently, it could not be
he that said what the children of Israel did, or what they ate when
they came there. This account of eating manna, which they tell us
was written by Moses, extends itself to the time of Joshua, the
successor of Moses, as appears by the account given in the book of
Joshua, after the children of Israel had passed the river Jordan,
and came into the borders of the land of Canaan. Joshua, v. 12:
"And the manna ceased on the morrow, after they had eaten of the
old corn of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna any
more, but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that
year."
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
55
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
But a more remarkable instance than this occurs in
Deuteronomy; which, while it shows that Moses could not be the
writer of that book, shows also the fabulous notions that prevailed
at that time about giants' In Deuteronomy iii. 11, among the
conquests said to be made by Moses, is an account of the taking of
Og, king of Bashan: "For only Og, king of Bashan, remained of the
race of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it
not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length
thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a
man." A cubit is 1 foot 9 888/1000 inches; the length therefore of
the bed was 16 feet 4 inches, and the breadth 7 feet 4 inches: thus
much for this giant's bed. Now for the historical part, which,
though the evidence is not so direct and positive as in the former
cases, is nevertheless very presumable and corroborating evidence,
and is better than the best evidence on the contrary side.
The writer, by way of proving the existence of this giant,
refers to his bed, as an ancient relick, and says, is it not in
Rabbath (or Rabbah) of the children of Ammon? meaning that it is;
for such is frequently the bible method of affirming a thing. But
it could not be Moses that said this, because Moses could know
nothing about Rabbah, nor of what was in it. Rabbah was not a city
belonging to this giant king, nor was it one of the cities that
Moses took. The knowledge therefore that this bed was at Rabbah,
and of the particulars of its dimensions, must be referred to the
time when Rabbah was taken, and this was not till four hundred
years after the death of Moses; for which, see 2 Sam. xii. 26: "And
Joab [David's general] fought against Rabbah of the children of
Ammon, and took the royal city," etc.
As I am not undertaking to point out all the contradictions in
time, place, and circumstance that abound in the books ascribed to
Moses, and which prove to demonstration that those books could not
be written by Moses, nor in the time of Moses, I proceed to the
book of Joshua, and to shew that Joshua is not the author of that
book, and that it is anonymous and without authority. The evidence
I shall produce is contained in the book itself: I will not go out
of the Bible for proof against the supposed authenticity of the
Bible. False testimony is always good against itself.
Joshua, according to Joshua i., was the immediate successor of
Moses; he was, moreover, a military man, which Moses was not; and
he continued as chief of the people of Israel twenty-five years;
that is, from the time that Moses died, which, according to the
Bible chronology, was B.C. 1451, until B.C. 1426, when, according
to the same chronology, Joshua died. If, therefore, we find in this
book, said to have been written by Joshua, references to facts done
after the death of Joshua, it is evidence that Joshua could not be
the author; and also that the book could not have been written till
after the time of the latest fact which it records. As to the
character of the book, it is horrid; it is a military history of
rapine and murder, as savage and brutal as those recorded of his
predecessor in villainy and hypocrisy, Moses; and the blasphemy
consists, as in the former books, in ascribing those deeds to the
orders of the Almighty.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
56
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
In the first place, the book of Joshua, as is the case in the
preceding books, is written in the third person; it is the
historian of Joshua that speaks, for it would have been absurd and
vainglorious that Joshua should say of himself, as is said of him
in the last verse of the sixth chapter, that "his fame was noised
throughout all the country." -- I now come more immediately to the
proof.
In Joshua xxiv. 31, it is said "And Israel served the Lord all
the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that over-lived
Joshua." Now, in the name of common sense, can it be Joshua that
relates what people had done after he was dead? This account must
not only have been written by some historian that lived after
Joshua, but that lived also after the elders that out-lived Joshua.
There are several passages of a general meaning with respect
to time, scattered throughout the book of Joshua, that carrics the
time in which the book was written to a distance from the time of
Joshua, but without marking by exclusion any particular time, as in
the passage above quoted. In that passage, the time that intervened
between the death of Joshua and the death of the elders is excluded
descriptively and absolutely, and the evidence substantiates that
the book could not have been written till after the death of the
last.
But though the passages to which I allude, and which I am
going to quote, do not designate any particular time by exclusion,
they imply a time far more distant from the days of Joshua than is
contained between the death of Joshua and the death of the elders.
Such is the passage, x. 14, where, after giving an account that the
sun stood still upon Gibeon, and the moon in the valley of Ajalon,
at the command of Joshua, (a tale only fit to amuse children)
[NOTE: This tale of the sun standing still upon Motint Gibeon, and
the moon in the valley of Ajalon, is one of those fables that
detects itself. Such a circumstance could not have happened without
being known all over the world. One half would have wondered why
the sun did not rise, and the other why it did not set; and the
tradition of it would be universal; whereas there is not a nation
in the world that knows anything about it. But why must the moon
stand still? What occasion could there be for moonlight in the
daytime, and that too whilst the sun shined? As a poetical figure,
the whole is well enough; it is akin to that in the song of Deborah
and Barak, The stars in their courses fought against Sisera; but it
is inferior to the figurative declaration of Mahomet to the persons
who came to expostulate with him on his goings on, Wert thou, said
he, to come to me with the sun in thy right hand and the moon in
thy left, it should not alter my career. For Joshua to have
exceeded Mahomet, he should have put the sun and moon, one in each
pocket, and carried them as Guy Faux carried his dark lanthorn, and
taken them out to shine as he might happen to want them. The
sublime and the ridiculous are often so nearly related that it is
difficult to class them separately. One step above the sublime
makes the ridiculous, and one step above the ridiculous makes the
sublime again; the account, however, abstracted from the poetical
fancy, shews the ignorance of Joshua, for he should have commanded
the earth to have stood still. -- Author.] the passage says: "And
there was no day like that, before it, nor after it, that the Lord
hearkened to the voice of a man."
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
57
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
The time implied by the expression after it, that is, after
that day, being put in comparison with all the time that passed
before it, must, in order to give any expressive signification to
the passage, mean a great letgth of time: -- for example, it would
have been ridiculous to have said so the next day, or the next
week, or the next month, or the next year; to give therefore
meaning to the passage, comparative with the wonder it relates, and
the prior time it alludes to, it must mean centuries of years; less
however than one would be trifling, and less than two would be
barely admissible.
A distant, but general time is also expressed in chapter
viii.; where, after giving an account of the taking the city of Ai,
it is said, ver. 28th, "And Joshua burned Ai, and made it an heap
for ever, a desolation unto this day;" and again, ver. 29, where
speaking of the king of Ai, whom Joshua had hanged, and buried at
the entering of the gate, it is said, "And he raised thereon a
great heap of stones, which remaineth unto this day," that is, unto
the day or time in which the writer of the book of Joshua lived.
And again, in chapter x. where, after speaking of the five kings
whom Joshua had hanged on five trees, and then thrown in a cave, it
is said, "And he laid great stones on the cave's mouth, which
remain unto this very day."
In enumerating the several exploits of Joshua, and of the
tribes, and of the places which they conquered or attempted, it is
said, xv. 63, "As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites
dwell with the children of Judah AT JERUSALEM unto this day." The
question upon this passage is, At what time did the Jebusites and
the children of Judah dwell together at Jerusalem? As this matter
occurs again in judges i. I shall reserve my observations till I
come to that part.
Having thus shewn from the book of Joshua itself, without any
auxiliary evidence whatever, that Joshua is not the author of that
book, and that it is anonymous, and consequently without authority,
I proceed, as before-mentioned, to the book of Judges.
The book of Judges is anonymous on the face of it; and,
therefore, even the pretence is wanting to call it the word of God;
it has not so much as a nominal voucher; it is altogether
fatherless.
This book begins with the same expression as the book of
Joshua. That of Joshua begins, chap i. 1, Now after the death of
Moses, etc., and this of the Judges begins, Now after the death of
Joshua, etc. This, and the similarity of stile between the two
books, indicate that they are the work of the same author; but who
he was, is altogether unknown; the only point that the book proves
is that the author lived long after the time of Joshua; for though
it begins as if it followed immediately after his death, the second
chapter is an epitome or abstract of the whole book, which,
according to the Bible chronology, extends its history through a
space of 306 years; that is, from the death of Joshua, B.C. 1426 to
the death of Samson, B.C. 1120, and only 25 years before Saul went
to seek his father's asses, and was made king. But there is good
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
58
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
reason to believe, that it was not written till the time of David,
at least, and that the book of Joshua was not written before the
same time.
In Judges i., the writer, after announcing the death of
Joshua, proceeds to tell what happened between the children of
Judah and the native inhabitants of the land of Canaan. In this
statement the writer, having abruptly mentioned Jerusalem in the
7th verse, says immediately after, in the 8th verse, by way of
explanation, "Now the children of Judah had fought against
Jerusalem, and taken it;" consequently this book could not have
been written before Jerusalem had been taken. The reader will
recollect the quotation I have just before made from Joshua xv. 63,
where it said that the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah
at Jerusalem at this day; meaning the time when the book of Joshua
was written.
The evidence I have already produced to prove that the books
I have hitherto treated of were not written by the persons to whom
they are ascribed, nor till many years after their death, if such
persons ever lived, is already so abundant, that I can afford to
admit this passage with less weight than I am entitled to draw from
it. For the case is, that so far as the Bible can be credited as an
history, the city of Jerusalem was not taken till the time of
David; and consequently, that the book of Joshua, and of Judges,
were not written till after the commencement of the reign of David,
which was 370 years after the death of Joshua.
The name of the city that was afterward called Jerusalem was
originally Jebus, or Jebusi, and was the capital of the Jebusites.
The account of David's taking this city is given in 2 Samuel, v. 4,
etc.; also in 1 Chron. xiv. 4, etc. There is no mention in any part
of the Bible that it was ever taken before, nor any account that
favours such an opinion. It is not said, either in Samuel or in
Chronicles, that they "utterly destroyed men, women and children,
that they left not a soul to breathe," as is said of their other
conquests; and the silence here observed implies that it was taken
by capitulation; and that the Jebusites, the native inhabitants,
continued to live in the place after it was taken. The account
therefore, given in Joshua, that "the Jebusites dwell with the
children of Judah" at Jerusalem at this day, corresponds to no
other time than after taking the city by David.
Having now shown that every book in the Bible, from Genesis to
Judges, is without authenticity, I come to the book of Ruth, an
idle, bungling story, foolishly told, nobody knows by whom, about
a strolling country-girl creeping slily to bed to her cousin Boaz.
[The text of Ruth does not imply the unpleasant sense Paine's words
are likely to convey. -- Editer.] Pretty stuff indeed to be called
the word of God. It is, however, one of the best books in the
Bible, for it is free from murder and rapine.
I come next to the two books of Samuel, and to shew that those
books were not written by Samuel, nor till a great length of time
after the death of Samuel; and that they are, like all the former
books, anonymous, and without authority.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
59
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
To be convinced that these books have been written much later
than the time of Samuel, and consequently not by him, it is only
necessary to read the account which the writer gives of Saul going
to seek his father's asses, and of his interview with Samuel, of
whom Saul went to enquire about those lost asses, as foolish people
nowa-days go to a conjuror to enquire after lost things.
The writer, in relating this story of Saul, Samuel, and the
asses, does not tell it as a thing that had just then happened, but
as an ancient story in the time this writer lived; for he tells it
in the language or terms used at the time that Samuel lived, which
obliges the writer to explain the story in the terms or language
used in the time the writer lived.
Samuel, in the account given of him in the first of those
books, chap. ix. 13 called the seer; and it is by this term that
Saul enquires after him, ver. 11, "And as they [Saul and his
servant] went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens
going out to draw water; and they said unto them, Is the seer here?
"Saul then went according to the direction of these maidens, and
met Samuel without knowing him, and said unto him, ver. 18, "Tell
me, I pray thee, where the seer's house is? and Samuel answered
Saul, and said, I am the seer."
As the writer of the book of Samuel relates these questions
and answers, in the language or manner of speaking used in the time
they are said to have been spoken, and as that manner of speaking
was out of use when this author wrote, he found it necessary, in
order to make the story understood, to explain the terms in which
these questions and answers are spoken; and he does this in the 9th
verse, where he says, "Before-tune in Israel, when a man went to
enquire of God, thus he spake, Come let us go to the seer; for he
that is now called a prophet, was before-time called a seer." This
proves, as I have before said, that this story of Saul, Samuel, and
the asses, was an ancient story at the time the book of Samuel was
written, and consequently that Samuel did not write it, and that
the book is without authenticity,
But if we go further into those books the evidence is still
more positive that Samuel is not the writer of them; for they
relate things that did not happen till several years after the
death of Samuel. Samuel died before Saul; for i Samuel, xxviii.
tells, that Saul and the witch of Endor conjured Samuel up after he
was dead; yet the history of matters contained in those books is
extended through the remaining part of Saul's life, and to the
latter end of the life of David, who succceded Saul. The account of
the death and burial of Samuel (a thing which he could not write
himself) is related in i Samuel xxv.; and the chronology affixed to
this chapter makes this to be B.C. 106O; yet the history of this
first book is brought down to B.C. 1056, that is, to the death of
Saul, which was not till four years after the death of Samuel.
The second book of Samuel begins with an account of things
that did not happen till four years after Samuel was dead; for it
begins with the reign of David, who succeeded Saul, and it goes on
to the end of David's reign, which was forty-three years after the
death of Samuel; and, therefore, the books are in themselves
positive evidence that they were not written by Samuel.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
60
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
I have now gone through all the books in the first part of the
Bible, to which the names of persons are affixed, as being the
authors of those books, and which the church, styling itself the
Christian church, have imposed upon the world as the writings of
Moses, Joshua and Samuel; and I have detected and proved the
falsehood of this imposition. -- And now ye priests, of every
description, who have preached and written against the former part
of the 'Age of Reason,' what have ye to say? Will ye with all this
mass of evidence against you, and staring you in the face, still
have the assurance to march into your pulpits, and continue to
impose these books on your congregations, as the works of inspired
penmen and the word of God? when it is as evident as demonstration
can make truth appear, that the persons who ye say are the authors,
are not the authors, and that ye know not who the authors are. What
shadow of pretence have ye now to produce for continuing the
blasphemous fraud? What have ye still to offer against the pure and
moral religion of deism, in support of your system of falsehood,
idolatry, and pretended revelation? Had the cruel and murdering
orders, with which the Bible is filled, and the numberless
torturing executions of men, women, and children, in consequence of
those orders, been ascribed to some friend, whose memory you
revered, you would have glowed with satisfaction at detecting the
falsehood of the charge, and gloried in defending his injured fame.
It is because ye are sunk in the cruelty of superstition, or feel
no interest in the honour of your Creator, that ye listen to the
horrid tales of the Bible, or hear them with callous indifference.
The evidence I have produced, and shall still produce in the course
of this work, to prove that the Bible is without authority, will,
whilst it wounds the stubbornness of a priest, relieve and
tranquillize the minds of millions: it will free them from all
those hard thoughts of the Almighty which priestcraft and the Bible
had infused into their minds, and which stood in everlasting
opposition to all their ideas of his moral justice and benevolence.
I come now to the two books of Kings, and the two books of
Chronicles. -- Those books are altogether historical, and are
chiefly confined to the lives and actions of the Jewish kings, who
in general were a parcel of rascals: but these are matters with
which we have no more concern than we have with the Roman emperors,
or Homer's account of the Trojan war. Besides which, as those books
are anonymous, and as we know nothing of the writer, or of his
character, it is impossible for us to know what degree of credit to
give to the matters related therein. Like all other ancient
histories, they appear to be a jumble of fable and of fact, and of
probable and of improbable things, but which distance of time and
place, and change of circumstances in the world, have rendered
obsolete and uninteresting.
The chief use I shall make of those books will be that of
comparing them with each other, and with other parts of the Bible,
to show the confusion, contradiction, and cruelty in this pretended
word of God.
The first book of Kings begins with the reign of Solomon,
which, according to the Bible chronology, was B.C. 1015; and the
second book ends B.C. 588, being a little after the reign of
Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar, after taking Jerusalem and
conquering the Jews, carried captive to Babylon. The two books
include a space of 427 years.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
61
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
The two books of Chroniclcs are an history of the same times,
and in general of the same persons, by another author; for it would
be absurd to suppose that the same author wrote the history twice
over. The first book of Chronicles (after giving the genealogy from
Adam to Saul, which takes up the first nine chapters) begins with
the reign of David; and the last book ends, as in the last book of
Kings, soon, after the reign of Zedekiah, about B.C. 588. The last
two verses of the last chapter bring the history 52 years more
forward, that is, to 536. But these verses do not belong to the
book, as I shall show when I come to speak of the book of Ezra.
The two books of Kings, besides the history of Saul, David,
and Solomon, who reigned over all Israel, contain an abstract of
the lives of seventeen kings, and one queen, who are stiled kings
of Judah; and of nineteen, who are stiled kings of Israel; for the
Jewish nation, immediately on the death of Solomon, split into two
parties, who chose separate kings, and who carried on most
rancorous wars against each other.
These two books are little more than a history of
assassinations, treachery, and wars. The cruelties that the Jews
had accustomed themselves to practise on the Canaanites, whose
country they had savagely invaded, under a pretended gift from God,
they afterwards practised as furiously on each other. Scarcely half
their kings died a natural death, and in some instances whole
families were destroyed to secure possession to the successor, who,
after a few years, and sometimes only a few months, or less, shared
the same fate. In 2 Kings x., an account is given of two baskets
full of children's heads, seventy in number, being exposed at the
entrance of the city; they were the children of Ahab, and were
murdered by the orders of Jehu, whom Elisha, the pretended man of
God, had anointed to be king over Israel, on purpose to commit this
bloody deed, and assassinate his predecessor. And in the account of
the reign of Menahem, one of the kings of Israel who had murdered
Shallum, who had reigned but one month, it is said, 2 Kings xv. 16,
that Menahem smote the city of Tiphsah, because they opened not the
city to him, and all the women therein that were with child he
ripped up.
Could we permit ourselves to suppose that the Almighty would
distinguish any nation of people by the name of his chosen people,
we must suppose that people to have been an example to all the rest
of the world of the purest piety and humanity, and not such a
nation of ruffians and cut-throats as the ancient Jews were, -- a
people who, corrupted by and copying after such monsters and
imposters as Moses and Aaron, Joshua, Samuel, and David, had
distinguished themselves above all others on the face of the known
earth for barbarity and wickedness. If we will not stubbornly shut
our eyes and steel our hearts it is impossible not to see, in spite
of all that long-established superstition imposes upon the mind,
that the flattering appellation of his chosen people is no other
than a LIE which the priests and leaders of the Jews had invented
to cover the baseness of their own characters; and which Christian
priests sometimes as corrupt, and often as cruel, have professed to
believe.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
62
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
The two books of Chronicles are a repetition of the same
crimes; but the history is broken in several places, by the author
leaving out the reign of some of their kings; and in this, as well
as in that of Kings, there is such a frequent transition from kings
of Judah to kings of Israel, and from kings of Israel to kings of
Judah, that the narrative is obscure in the reading. In the same
book the history sometimes contradicts itself: for example, in 2
Kings, i. 17, we are told, but in rather ambiguous terms, that
after the death of Ahaziah, king of Israel, Jehoram, or Joram, (who
was of the house of Ahab, reigned in his stead in the second Year
of Jehoram, or Joram, son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah; and in
viii. 16, of the same book, it is said, "And in the fifth year of
Joram, the son of Ahab, king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king
of Judah, Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat king of judah, began to
reign." That is, one chapter says Joram of Judah began to reign in
the second year of Joram of Israel; and the other chapter says,
that Joram of Israel began to reign in the fifth year of Joram of
Judah.
Several of the most extraordinary matters related in one
history, as having happened during the reign of such or such of
their kings, are not to be found in the other, in relating the
reign of the same king: for example, the two first rival kings,
after the death of Solomon, were Rehoboam and Jeroboam; and in i
Kings xii. and xiii. an account is given of Jeroboam making an
offering of burnt incense, and that a man, who is there called a
man of God, cried out against the altar (xiii. 2): "O altar, altar!
thus saith the Lord: Behold, a child shall be born unto the house
of David, Josiah by name, and upon thee shall he offer the priests
of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones
shall be burned upon thee." Verse 4: "And it came to pass, when
king Jeroboam heard the saying of the man of God, which had cried
against the altar in Bethel, that he put forth his hand from the
altar, saying, Lay hold on him; and his hand which he put out
against him dried up so that he could not pull it again to him."
One would think that such an extraordinary case as this,
(which is spoken of as a judgement,) happening to the chief of one
of the parties, and that at the first moment of the separation of
the Israelites into two nations, would, if it,. had been true, have
been recorded in both histories. But though men, in later times,
have believed all that the prophets have said unto them, it does
appear that those prophets, or historians, disbelieved each other:
they knew each other too well.
A long account also is given in Kings about Elijah. It runs
through several chapters, and concludes with telling, 2 Kings ii.
11, "And it came to pass, as they (Elijah and Elisha) still went
on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and
horses of fire, and parted them both asunder, and Elijah went up by
a whirlwind into heaven." Hum! this the author of Chronicles,
miraculous as the story is, makes no mention of, though he mentions
Elijah by name; neither does he say anything of the story related
in the second chapter of the same book of Kings, of a parcel of
children calling Elisha bald head; and that this man of God (ver.
24) "turned back, and looked upon them, and cursed them in the name
of the Lord; and there came forth two she-bears out of the wood,
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
63
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
and tare forty and two children of them." He also passes over in
silence the story told, 2 Kings xiii., that when they were burying
a man in the sepulchre where Elisha had been buried, it happened
that the dead man, as they were letting him down, (ver. 21)
"touched the bones of Elisha, and he (the dead man) revived, and
stood up on his feet." The story does not tell us whether they
buried the man, notwithstanding he revived and stood upon his feet,
or drew him up again. Upon all these stories the writer of the
Chronicles is as silent as any writer of the present day, who did
not chose to be accused of lying, or at least of romancing, would
be about stories of the same kind.
But, however these two historians may differ from each other
with respect to the tales related by either, they are silent alike
with respect to those men styled prophets whose writings fill up
the latter part of the Bible. Isaiah, who lived in the time of
Hezekiab, is mentioned in Kings, and again in Chronicles, when
these histories are speaking of that reign; but except in one or
two instances at most, and those very slightly, none of the rest
are so much as spoken of, or even their existence hinted at;
though, according to the Bible chronology, they lived within the
time those histories were written; and some of them long before. If
those prophets, as they are called, were men of such importance in
their day, as the compilers of the Bible, and priests and
commentators have since represented them to be, how can it be
accounted for that not one of those histories should say anything
about them?
The history in the books of Kings and of Chronicles is brought
forward, as I have already said, to the year B.C. 588; it will,
therefore, be proper to examine which of these prophets lived
before that period.
Here follows a table of all the prophets, with the times in
which they lived before Christ, according to the chronology affixed
to the first chapter of each of the books of the prophets; and also
of the number of years they lived before the books of Kings and
Chronicles were written:
TABLE of the Prophets, with the time in which they lived
before Christ, and also before the books of Kings and Chronicles
were written:
Years Years before
NAMES. before Kings and Observations.
Christ. Chronicles.
Isaiah.............. 760 172 mentioned.
(mentioned only in
Jeremiah............. 629 41 the last [two] chapters
of Chronicles.
Ezekiel.............. 595 7 not mentioned.
Daniel............... 607 19 not mentioned.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
64
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
Hosea................ 785 97 not mentioned.
Joel................. 800 212 not mentioned.
Amos................. 789 199 not meneioned.
Obadiah.............. 789 199 not mentioned.
Jonah................ 862 274 see the note.*
Micah................ 750 162 not mentioned.
Nahum............... 7I3 125 not mentioned.
Habakkuk............. 620 38 not mentioned.
Zepbaniah............ 630 42 not mentioned.
Haggai
Zechariah all three after the year 588
Mdachi
[NOTE * In 2 Kings xiv. 25, the name of Jonah is mentioned on
account of the restoration of a tract of land by Jeroboam; but
nothing further is said of him, nor is any allusion made to the
book of Jonah, nor to his expedition to Nineveh, nor to his
encounter with the whale. -- Author.]
This table is either not very honourable for the Bible
historians, or not very honourable for the Bible prophets; and I
leave to priests and commentators, who are very learned in little
things, to settle the point of etiquette between the two; and to
assign a reason, why the authors of Kings and of Chronicles have
treated those prophets, whom, in the former part of the 'Age of
Reason,' I have considered as poets, with as much degrading silence
as any historian of the present day would treat Peter Pindar.
I have one more observation to make on the book of Chronicles;
after which I shall pass on to review the remaining books of the
Bible.
In my observations on the book of Genesis, I have quoted a
passage from xxxvi. 31, which evidently refers to a time, after
that kings began to reign over the children of Israel; and I have
shown that as this verse is verbatim the same as in 1 Chronicles i.
43, where it stands consistently with the order of history, which
in Genesis it does not, that the verse in Genesis, and a great part
of the 36th chapter, have been taken from Chronicles; and that the
book of Genesis, though it is placed first in the Bible, and
ascribed to Moses, has been manufactured by some unknown person,
after the book of Chronicles was written, which was not until at
least eight hundred and sixty years after the time of Moses.
The evidence I proceed by to substantiate this, is regular,
and has in it but two stages. First, as I have already stated, that
the passage in Genesis refers itself for time to Chronicles;
secondly, that the book of Chronicles, to which this passage refers
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
65
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
itself, was not begun to be written until at least eight hundred
and sixty years after the time of Moses. To prove this, we have
only to look into 1 Chronicles iii. 15, where the writer, in giving
the genealogy of the descendants of David, mentions Zedekiah; and
it was in the time of Zedekiah that Nebuchadnezzar conquered
Jerusalem, B.C. 588, and consequently more than 860 years after
Moses. Those who have superstitiously boasted of the antiquity of
the Bible, and particularly of the books ascribed to Moses, have
done it without examination, and without any other authority than
that of one credulous man telling it to another: for, so far as
historical and chronological evidence applies, the very first book
in the Bible is not so ancient as the book of Homer, by more than
three hundred years, and is about the same age with AEsop's Fables.
I am not contending for the morality of Homer; on the
contrary, I think it a book of false glory, and tending to inspire
immoral and mischievous notions of honour; and with respect to
AEsop, though the moral is in general just, the fable is often
cruel; and the cruelty of the fable does more injury to the heart,
especially in a child, than the moral does good to the judgment.
Having now dismissed Kings and Chronicles, I come to the next
in course, the book of Ezra.
As one proof, among others I shall produce to shew the
disorder in which this pretended word of God, the Bible, has been
put together, and the uncertainty of who the authors were, we have
only to look at the first three verses in Ezra, and the last two in
2 Chronicles; for by what kind of cutting and shuffling has it been
that the first three verses in Ezra should be the last two verses
in 2 Chronicles, or that the last two in 2 Chronicles should be the
first three in Ezra? Either the authors did not know their own
works or the compilers did not know the authors.
Last Two Verses of 2 Chronicles.
Ver. 22. Now in the first year of Cyrus, King of Persia, that
the word of the Lord, spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah, might be
accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of
Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and
put it also in writing, saying,
23. Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, all the kingdoms of the
earth hath the Lord God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me
to build him an house in Jerusalem which is in Judah. Who is there
among you of all his people? the Lord his God be with him, and let
him go up. ***
First Three Verses of Ezra.
Ver. 1. Now in the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia, that
the word of the Lord, by the mouth of Jeremiah, might be fulfilled,
the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, king of Persia, that he
made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in
writing, saying,
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
66
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
2. Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven
hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me
to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.
3. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with
him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build
the house of the Lord God of Israel (he is the God) which is in
Jerusalem.
*** The last verse in Chronicles is broken abruptly, and ends
in the middle of the phrase with the word 'up' without signifying
to what place. This abrupt break, and the appearance of the same
verses in different books, show as I have already said, the
disorder and ignorance in which the Bible has been put together,
and that the compilers of it had no authority for what they were
doing, nor we any authority for believing what they have done.
[NOTE I observed, as I passed along, several broken and senseless
passages in the Bible, without thinking them of consequence enough
to be introduced in the body of the work; such as that, 1 Samuel
xiii. 1, where it is said, "Saul reigned one year; and when he had
reigned two years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men,"
&c. The first part of the verse, that Saul reigned one year has no
sense, since it does not tell us what Saul did, nor say any thing
of what happened at the end of that one year; and it is, besides,
mere absurdity to say he reigned one year, when the very next
phrase says he had reigned two for if he had reigned two, it was
impossible not to have reigned one.
Another instance occurs in Joshua v. where the writer tells us
a story of an angel (for such the table of contents at the head of
the chapter calls him) appearing unto Joshua; and the story ends
abruptly, and without any conclusion. The story is as follows: --
Ver. 13. "And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he
lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold there stood a man over
against him with his sword drawn in his hand; and Joshua went unto
bim and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?"
Verse 14, "And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord
am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did
worship and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant?"
Verse 15, "And the captain of the Lord's host said unto Josbua,
Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou
standeth is holy. And Joshua did so." -- And what then? nothing:
for here the story ends, and the chapter too.
Either this story is broken off in the middle, or it is a
story told by some Jewish humourist in ridicule of Joshua's
pretended mission from God, and the compilers of the Bible, not
perceiving the design of the story, have told it as a serious
matter. As a story of humour and ridicule it has a great deal of
point; for it pompously introduces an angel in the figure of a man,
with a drawn sword in his hand, before whom Joshua falls on his
face to the earth, and worships (which is contrary to their second
commandment;) and then, this most important embassy from heaven
ends in telling Joshua to pull off his shoe. It might as well have
told him to pull up his breeches.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
67
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
It is certain, however, that the Jews did not credit every
thing their leaders told them, as appears from the cavalier manner
in which they speak of Moses, when he was gone into the mount. As
for this Moses, say they, we wot not what is become of him. Exod.
xxxii. 1. -- Auther.]
The only thing that has any appearance of certainty in the
book of Ezra is the time in which it was written, which was
immediately after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian
captivity, about B.C. 536. Ezra (who, according to the Jewish
commentators, is the same person as is called Esdras in the
Apocrypha) was one of the persons who returned, and who, it is
probable, wrote the account of that affair. Nebemiah, whose book
follows next to Ezra, was another of the returned persons; and who,
it is also probable, wrote the account of the same affair, in the
book that bears his name. But those accounts are nothing to us, nor
to any other person, unless it be to the Jews, as a part of the
history of their nation; and there is just as much of the word of
God in those books as there is in any of the histories of France,
or Rapin's history of England, or the history of any other country.
But even in matters of historical record, neither of those
writers are to be depended upon. In Ezra ii., the writer gives a
list of the tribes and families, and of the precise number of souls
of each, that returned from Babylon to Jerusalem; and this
enrolment of the persons so returned appears to have been one of
the principal objects for writing the book; but in this there is an
error that destroys the intention of the undertaking.
The writer begins his enrolment in the following manner (ii.
3): "The children of Parosh, two thousand one hundred seventy and
four." Ver. 4, "The children of Shephatiah, three hundred seventy
and two." And in this manner he proceeds through all the families;
and in the 64th verse, he makes a total, and says, the whole
congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and
threescore.
But whoever will take the trouble of casting up the several
particulars, will find that the total is but 29,818; so that the
error is 12,542. What certainty then can there be in the Bible for
any thing?
[Here Mr. Paine includes the long list of numbers from the
Bible of all the children listed and the total thereof. This can be
had directly from the Bible.]
Nehemiah, in like manner, gives a list of the returned
families, and of the number of each family. He begins as in Ezra,
by saying (vii. 8): "The children of Parosh, two thousand three
hundred and seventy-two; "and so on through all the families. (The
list differs in several of the particulars from that of Ezra.) In
ver. 66, Nehemiah makes a total, and says, as Ezra had said, "The
whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three
hundred and threescore." But the particulars of this list make a
total but of 31,089, so that the error here is 11,271. These
writers may do well enough for Bible-makers, but not for any thing
where truth and exactness is necessary.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
68
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
The next book in course is the book of Esther. If Madam Esther
thought it any honour to offer herself as a kept mistress to
Ahasuerus, or as a rival to Queen Vashti, who had refused to come
to a drunken king in the midst of a drunken company, to be made a
show of, (for the account says, they had been drinking seven days,
and were merry,) let Esther and Mordecai look to that, it is no
business of ours, at least it is none of mine; besides which, the
story has a great deal the appearance of being fabulous, and is
also anonymous. I pass on to the book of Job.
The book of Job differs in character from all the books we
have hitherto passed over. Treachery and murder make no part of
this book; it is the meditations of a mind strongly impressed with
the vicissitudes of human life, and by turns sinking under, and
struggling against the pressure. It is a highly wrought
composition, between willing submission and involuntary discontent;
and shows man, as he sometimes is, more disposed to be resigned
than he is capable of being. Patience has but a small share in the
character of the person of whom the book treats; on the contrary,
his grief is often impetuous; but he still endeavours to keep a
guard upon it, and seems determined, in the midst of accumulating
ills, to impose upon himself the hard duty of contentment.
I have spoken in a respectful manner of the book of Job in the
former part of the 'Age of Reason,' but without knowing at that
time what I have learned since; which is, that from all the
evidence that can be collected, the book of Job does not belong to
the Bible.
I have seen the opinion of two Hebrew commentators, Abenezra
and Spinoza, upon this subject; they both say that the book of Job
carries no internal evidence of being an Hebrew book; that the
genius of the composition, and the drama of the piece, are not
Hebrew; that it has been translated from another language into
Hebrew, and that the author of the book was a Gentile; that the
character represented under the name of Satan (which is the first
and only time this name is mentioned in the Bible) [In a later
work Paine notes that in "the Bible" (by which be always means the
Old Testament alone) the word Satan occurs also in 1 Chron. xxi. 1,
and remarks that the action there ascribed to Satan is in 2 Sam.
xxiv. 1, attributed to Jehovah ("Essay on Dreams"). In these
places, however, and in Ps. cix. 6, Satan means "adversary," and is
so translated (A.S. version) in 2 Sam. xix. 22, and 1 Kings v. 4,
xi. 25. As a proper name, with the article, Satan appears in the
Old Testament only in Job and in Zech. iii. 1, 2. But the
authenticity of the passage in Zechariah has been questioned, and
it may be that in finding the proper name of Satan in Job alone,
Paine was following some opinion met with in one of the authorities
whose comments are condensed in his paragraph. -- Editor.] does
not correspond to any Hebrew idea; and that the two convocations
which the Deity is supposed to have made of those whom the poem
calls sons of God, and the familiarity which this supposed Satan is
stated to have with the Deity, are in the same case.
It may also be observed, that the book shows itself to be the
production of a mind cultivated in science, which the Jews, so far
from being famous for, were very ignorant of. The allusions to
objects of natural philosophy are frequent and strong, and are of
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
69
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
a different cast to any thing in the books known to be Hebrew. The
astronomical names, Pleiades, Orion, and Arcturus, are Greek and
not Hebrew names, and it does not appear from any thing that is to
be found in the Bible that the Jews knew any thing of astronomy, or
that they studied it, they had no translation of those names into
their own language, but adopted the names as they found them in the
poem. [Paine's Jewish critic, David Levi, fastened on this slip
("Detence of the Old Testament," 1797, p. 152). In the original the
names are Ash (Arcturus), Kesil' (Orion), Kimah' (Pleiades), though
the identifications of the constellations in the A.S.V. have been
questioned. -- Editor.]
That the Jews did translate the literary productions of the
Gentile nations into the Hebrew language, and mix them with their
own, is not a matter of doubt; Proverbs xxxi. i, is an evidence of
this: it is there said, The word of king Lemuel, the prophecy which
his mother taught him. This verse stands as a preface to the
proverbs that follow, and which are not the proverbs of Solomon,
but of Lemuel; and this Lemuel was not one of the kings of Israel,
nor of Judah, but of some other country, and consequently a
Gentile. The Jews however have adopted his proverbs; and as they
cannot give any account who the author of the book of Job was, nor
how they came by the book, and as it differs in character from the
Hebrew writings, and stands totally unconnected with every other
book and chapter in the Bible before it and after it, it has all
the circumstantial evidence of being originally a book of the
Gentiles. [The prayer known by the name of Agur's Prayer, in
Proverbs xxx., -- immediately preceding the proverbs of Lemuel, --
and which is the only sensible, well-conceived, and well-expressed
prayer in the Bible, has much the appearance of being a prayer
taken from the Gentiles. The name of Agur occurs on no other
occasion than this; and he is introduced, together with the prayer
ascribed to him, in the same manner, and nearly in the same words,
that Lemuel and his proverbs are introduced in the chapter that
follows. The first verse says, "The words of Agur, the son of
Jakeh, even the prophecy: "here the word prophecy is used with the
same application it has in the following chapter of Lemuel,
unconnected with anything of prediction. The prayer of Agur is in
the 8th and 9th verses, "Remove far from me vanity and lies; give
me neither riches nor poverty, but feed me with food convenient for
me; lest I be full and deny thee and say, Who is the Lord? or lest
I be poor and steal, and take the name of my God in vain." This has
not any of the marks of being a Jewish prayer, for the Jews never
prayed but when they were in trouble, and never for anything but
victory, vengeance, or riches. -- Author. (Prov. xxx. 1, and xxxi.
1, the word "prophecy" in these verses is tranrinted "oracle" or
"burden" (marg.) in the revised version. -- The prayer of Agur was
quoted by Paine in his plea for the officers of Excise, 1772. --
Editer.]
The Bible-makers, and those regulators of time, the Bible
chronologists, appear to have been at a loss where to place and how
to dispose of the book of Job; for it contains no one historical
circumstance, nor allusion to any, that might serve to determine
its place in the Bible. But it would not have answered the purpose
of these men to have informed the world of their ignorance; and,
therefore, they have affixed it to the aera of B.C. 1520, which is
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
70
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
during the time the Israelites were in Egypt, and for which they
have just as much authority and no more than I should have for
saying it was a thousand years before that period. The probability
however is, that it is older than any book in the Bible; and it is
the only one that can be read without indignation or disgust.
We know nothing of what the ancient Gentile world (as it is
called) was before the time of the Jews, whose practice has been to
calumniate and blacken the character of all other nations; and it
is from the Jewish accounts that we have learned to call them
heathens. But, as far as we know to the contrary, they were a just
and moral people, and not addicted, like the Jews, to cruelty and
revenge, but of whose profession of faith we are unacquainted. It
appears to have been their custom to personify both virtue and vice
by statues and images, as is done now-a-days both by statuary and
by painting; but it does not follow from this that they worshipped
them any more than we do. -- I pass on to the book of
Psalms, of which it is not necessary to make much observation.
Some of them are moral, and others are very revengeful; and the
greater part relates to certain local circumstances of the Jewish
nation at the time they were written, with which we have nothing to
do. It is, however, an error or an imposition to call them the
Psalms of David; they are a collection, as song-books are now-a-
days, from different song-writers, who lived at different times.
The 137th Psalm could not have been written till more than 400
years after the time of David, because it is written in
commemoration of an event, the capitivity of the Jews in Babylon,
which did not happen till that distance of time. "By the rivers of
Babylon we sat down; yea, we wept when we remembered Zion. We
hanged our harps upon the willows, in the midst thereof; for there
they that carried us away cartive required of us a song, saying,
sing us one of the songs of Zion." As a man would say to an
American, or to a Frenchman, or to an Englishman, sing us one of
your American songs, or your French songs, or your English songs.
This remark, with respect to the time this psalm was written, is of
no other use than to show (among others already mentioned) the
general imposition the world has been under with respect to the
authors of the Bible. No regard has been paid to time, place, and
circumstance; and the names of persons have been affixed to the
several books which it was as impossible they should write, as that
a man should walk in procession at his own funeral.
The Book of Proverbs. These, like the Psalms, are a
collection, and that from authors belonging to other nations than
those of the Jewish nation, as I have shewn in the observations
upon the book of Job; besides which, some of the Proverbs ascribed
to Solomon did not appear till two hundred and fifty years after
the death of Solomon; for it is said in xxv. i, "These are also
proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah,
copied out." It was two hundred and fifty years from the time of
Solomon to the time of Hezekiah. When a man is famous and his name
is abroad he is made the putative father of things he never said or
did; and this, most probably, has been the case with Solomon. It
appears to have been the fashion of that day to make proverbs, as
it is now to make jest-books, and father them upon those who never
saw them. [A "Tom Paine's Jest Book" had appeared in London with
little or nothing of Paine in it. -- Editor.]
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
71
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
The book of Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher, is also ascribed to
Solomon, and that with much reason, if not with truth. It is
written as the solitary reflections of a worn-out debauchee, such
as Solomon was, who looking back on scenes he can no longer enjoy,
cries out All is Vanity! A great deal of the metaphor and of the
sentiment is obscure, most probably by translation; but enough is
left to show they were strongly pointed in the original. [Those
that look out of the window shall be darkened, is an obscure figure
in translation for loss of sight. -- Author.] From what is
transmitted to us of the character of Solomon, he was witty,
ostentatious, dissolute, and at last melancholy. He lived fast, and
died, tired of the world, at the age of fifty-eight years.
Seven hundred wives, and three hundred concubines, are worse
than none; and, however it may carry with it the appearance of
heightened enjoyment, it defeats all the felicity of affection, by
leaving it no point to fix upon; divided love is never happy. This
was the case with Solomon; and if he could not, with all his
pretensions to wisdom, discover it beforehand, he merited,
unpitied, the mortification he afterwards endured. In this point of
view, his preaching is unnecessary, because, to know the
consequences, it is only necessary to know the cause. Seven hundred
wives, and three hundred concubines would have stood in place of
the whole book. It was needless after this to say that all was
vanity and vexation of spirit; for it is impossible to derive
happiness from the company of those whom we deprive of happiness.
To be happy in old age it is necessary that we accustom
ourselves to objects that can accompany the mind all the way
through life, and that we take the rest as good in their day. The
mere man of pleasure is miserable in old age; and the mere drudge
in business is but little better: whereas, natural philosophy,
mathematical and mechanical science, are a continual source of
tranquil pleasure, and in spite of the gloomy dogmas of priests,
and of superstition, the study of those things is the study of the
true theology; it teaches man to know and to admire the Creator,
for the principles of science are in the creation, and are
unchangeable, and of divine origin.
Those who knew Benjaman Franklin will recollect, that his mind
was ever young; his temper ever serene; science, that never grows
grey, was always his mistress. He was never without an object; for
when we cease to have an object we become like an invalid in an
hospital waiting for death.
Solomon's Songs, amorous and foolish enough, but which
wrinkled fanaticism has called divine. -- The compilers of the
Bible have placed these songs after the book of Ecclesiastes; and
the chronologists have affixed to them the aera of B.C. 1O14, at
which time Solomon, according to the same chronology, was nineteen
years of age, and was then forming his seraglio of wives and
concubines. The Bible-makers and the chronologists should have
managed this matter a little better, and either have said nothing
about the time, or chosen a time less inconsistent with the
supposed divinity of those songs; for Solomon was then in the
honey-moon of one thousand debaucheries.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
72
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
It should also have occurred to them, that as he wrote, if he
did write, the book of Ecclesiastes, long after these songs, and in
which he exclaims that all is vanity and vexation of spirit, that
he included those songs in that description. This is the more
probable, because he says, or somebody for him, Ecclesiastes ii. 8,
I got me men-singers, and women-singers (most probably to sing
those songs], and musical instruments of all sores; and behold
(Ver. ii), "all was vanity and vexation of spirit." The compilers
however have done their work but by halves; for as they have given
us the songs they should have given us the tunes, that we might
sing them.
The books called the books of the Prophets fill up all the
remaining part of the Bible; they are sixteen in number, beginning
with Isaiah and ending with Malachi, of which I have given a list
in the observations upon Chronicles. Of these sixteen prophets, all
of whom except the last three lived within the time the books of
Kings and Chronicles were written, two only, Isaiah and Jeremiah,
are mentioned in the history of those books. I shall begin with
those two, reserving, what I have to say on the general character
of the men called prophets to another part of the work.
Whoever will take the trouble of reading the book ascribed to
Isaiah, will find it one of the most wild and disorderly
compositions ever put together; it has neither beginning, middle,
nor end; and, except a short historical part, and a few sketches of
history in the first two or three chapters, is one continued
incoherent, bombastical rant, full of extravagant metaphor, without
application, and destitute of meaning; a school-boy would scarcely
have been excusable for writing such stuff; it is (at least in
translation) that kind of composition and false taste that is
properly called prose run mad.
The historical part begins at chapter xxxvi., and is continued
to the end of chapter xxxix. It relates some matters that are said
to have passed during the reign of Hezekiah, king of Judah, at
which time Isaiah lived. This fragment of history begins and ends
abruptly; it has not the least connection with the chapter that
precedes it, nor with that which follows it, nor with any other in
the book. It is probable that Isaiah wrote this fragment himself,
because he was an actor in the circumstances it treats of; but
except this part there are scarcely two chapters that have any
connection with each other. One is entitled, at the beginning of
the first verse, the burden of Babylon; another, the burden of
Moab; another, the burden of Damascus; another, the burden of
Egypt; another, the burden of the Desert of the Sea; another, the
burden of the Valley of Vision: as you would say the story of the
Knight of the Burning Mountain, the story of Cinderella, or the
glassen slipper, the story of the Sleeping Beauty in the Wood,
etc., etc.
I have already shown, in the instance of the last two verses
of 2 Chronicles, and the first three in Ezra, that the compilers of
the Bible mixed and confounded the writings of different authors
with each other; which alone, were there no other cause, is
sufficient to destroy the authenticity of an compilation, because
it is more than presumptive evidence that the compilers are
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
73
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
ignorant who the authors were. A very glaring instance of this
occurs in the book ascribed to Isaiah: the latter part of the 44th
chapter, and the beginning of the 45th, so far from having been
written by Isaiah, could only have been written by some person who
lived at least an hundred and fifty years after Isaiah was dead.
These chapters are a compliment to Cyrus, who permitted the
Jews to return to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity, to
rebuild Jerusalem and the temple, as is stated in Ezra. The last
verse of the 44th chapter, and the beginning of the 45th [Isaiah]
are in the following words: "That saith of Cyrus, he is my
shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure; even saying to
Jerusalem, thou shalt be built; and to the temple thy foundations
shall be laid: thus saith the Lord to his enointed, to Cyrus, whose
right hand I have holden to subdue nations before him, and I will
loose the loins of kings to open before him the two-leaved gates,
and the gates shall not be shut; I will go before thee," etc.
What audacity of church and priestly ignorance it is to impose
this book upon the world as the writing of Isaiah, when Isaiah,
according to their own chronology, died soon after the death of
Hezekiah, which was B.C. 698; and the decree of Cyrus, in favour of
the Jews returning to Jerusalem, was, according to the same
chronology, B.C. 536; which is a distance of time between the two
of 162 years. I do not suppose that the compilers of the Bible made
these books, but rather that they picked up some loose, anonymous
essays, and put them together under the names of such authors as
best suited their purpose. They have encouraged the imposition,
which is next to inventing it; for it was impossible but they must
have observed it.
When we see the studied craft of the scripture-makers, in
making every part of this romantic book of school-boy's eloquence
bend to the monstrous idea of a Son of God, begotten by a ghost on
the body of a virgin, there is no imposition we are not justified
in suspecting them of. Every phrase and circumstance are marked
with the barbarous hand of superstitious torture, and forced into
meanings it was impossible they could have. The head of every
chapter, and the top of every page, are blazoned with the names of
Christ and the Church, that the unwary reader might suck in the
error before he began to read.
Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son (Isa. vii. I4),
has been interpreted to mean the person called Jesus Christ, and
his mother Mary, and has been echoed through christendom for more
than a thousand years; and such has been the rage of this opinion,
that scarcely a spot in it but has been stained with blood and
marked with desolation in consequence of it. Though it is not my
intention to enter into controversy on subjects of this kind, but
to confine myself to show that the Bible is spurious, -- and thus,
by taking away the foundation, to overthrow at once the whole
structure of superstition raised thereon, -- I will however stop a
moment to expose the fallacious application of this passage.
Whether Isaiah was playing a trick with Ahaz, king of Judah,
to whom this passage is spoken, is no business of mine; I mean only
to show the misapplication of the passage, and that it has no more
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
74
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
reference to Christ and his mother, than it has to me and my
mother. The story is simply this:
The king of Syria and the king of Israel (I have already
mentioned that the Jews were split into two nations, one of which
was called Judah, the capital of which was Jerusalem, and the other
Israel) made war jointly against Ahaz, king of Judah, and marched
their armies towards Jerusalem. Ahaz and his people became alarmed,
and the account says (Is. vii. 2), Their hearts were moved as the
trees of the wood are moved with the wind.
In this situation of things, Isaiah addresses himself to Ahaz,
and assures him in the name of the Lord (the cant phrase of all the
prophets) that these two kings should not succeed against him; and
to satisfy Ahaz that this should be the case, tells him to ask a
sign. This, the account says, Ahaz declined doing; giving as a
reason that he would not tempt the Lord; upon which Isaiah, who is
the speaker, says, ver. 14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give
you a sign; behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son;" and the
16th verse says, "And before this child shall know to refuse the
evil, and choose the good, the land which thou abhorrest or
dreadest [meaning Syria and the kingdom of Israel] shall be
forsaken of both her kings." Here then was the sign, and the time
limited for the completion of the assurance or promise; namely,
before this child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the
good.
Isaiah having committed himself thus far, it became necessary
to him, in order to avoid the imputation of being a false prophet,
and the consequences thereof, to take measures to make this sign
appear. It certainly was not a difficult thing, in any time of the
world, to find a girl with child, or to make her so; and perhaps
Isaiah knew of one beforehand; for I do not suppose that the
prophets of that day were any more to be trusted than the priests
of this: be that, however, as it may, he says in the next chapter,
ver. 2, "And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the
priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah, and I went unto the
prophetess, and she conceived and bare a son."
Here then is the whole story, foolish as it is, of this child
and this virgin; and it is upon the barefaced perversion of this
story that the book of Matthew, and the impudence and sordid
interest of priests in later times, have founded a theory, which
they call the gospel; and have applied this story to signify the
person they call Jesus Christ; begotten, they say, by a ghost, whom
they call holy, on the body of a woman engaged in marriage, and
afterwards married, whom they call a virgin, seven hundred years
after this foolish story was told; a theory which, speaking for
myself, I hesitate not to believe, and to say, is as fabulous and
as false as God is true. [In Is. vii. 14, it is said that the
child should be called Immanuel; but this name was not given to
either of the children, otherwise than as a character, which the
word signifies. That of the prophetess was called Maher-shalalhash-
baz, and that of Mary was called Jesus. -- Author.]
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
75
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
But to show the imposition and falsehood of Isaiah we have
only to attend to the sequel of this story; which, though it is
passed over in silence in the book of Isaiah, is related in 2
Chronicles, xxviii; and which is, that instead of these two kings
failing in their attempt against Ahaz, king of Judah, as Isaiah had
pretended to foretel in the name of the Lord, they succeeded: Ahaz
was defeated and destroyed; an hundred and twenty thousand of his
people were slaughtered; Jerusalem was plundered, and two hundred
thousand women and sons and daughters carried into captivity. Thus
much for this lying prophet and imposter Isaiah, and the book of
falsehoods that bears his name. I pass on to the book of
Jeremiah. This prophet, as he is called, lived in the time
that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, in the reign of Zedekiah,
the last king of Judah; and the suspicion was strong against him
that he was a traitor in the interest of Nebuchadnezzar. Every
thing relating to Jeremiah shows him to have been a man of an
equivocal character: in his metaphor of the potter and the clay,
(ch. xviii.) he guards his prognostications in such a crafty manner
as always to leave himself a door to escape by, in case the event
should be contrary to what he had predicted. In the 7th and 8th
verses he makes the Almighty to say, "At what instant I shall speak
concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to
pull down, and destroy it, if that nation, against whom I have
pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent me of the evil that
I thought to do unto them." Here was a proviso against one side of
the case: now for the other side. Verses 9 and 10, "At what instant
I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to
build and to plant it, if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not
my voice, then I will repent me of the good wherewith I said I
would benefit them." Here is a proviso against the other side; and,
according to this plan of prophesying, a prophet could never be
wrong, however mistaken the Almighty might be. This sort of absurd
subterfuge, and this manner of speaking of the Almighty, as one
would speak of a man, is consistent with nothing but the stupidity
of the Bible.
As to the authenticity of the book, it is only necessary to
read it in order to decide positively that, though some passages
recorded therein may have been spoken by Jeremiah, he is not the
author of the book. The historical parts, if they can be called by
that name, are in the most confused condition; the same events are
several times repeated, and that in a manner different, and
sometimes in contradiction to each other; and this disorder runs
even to the last chapter, where the history, upon which the greater
part of the book has been employed, begins anew, and ends abruptly.
The book has all the appearance of being a medley of unconnected
anecdotes respecting persons and things of that time, collected
together in the same rude manner as if the various and
contradictory accounts that are to be found in a bundle of
newspapers, respecting persons and things of the present day, were
put together without date, order, or explanation. I will give two
or three examples of this kind.
It appears, from the account of chapter xxxvii. that the army
of Nebuchadnezzer, which is called the army of the Chaldeans, had
besieged Jerusalem some time; and on their hearing that the army of
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
76
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
Pharaoh of Egypt was marching against them, they raised the siege
and retreated for a time. It may here be proper to mention, in
order to understand this confused history, that Nebuchadnezzar had
besieged and taken Jerusalem during the reign of Jehoakim, the
redecessor of Zedekiah; and that it was Nebuchadnezzar who had make
Zedekiah king, or rather viceroy; and that this second siege, of
which the book of Jeremiah treats, was in consequence of the revolt
of Zedekiah against Nebuchadnezzar. This will in some measure
account for the suspicion that affixes itself to Jeremiah of being
a traitor, and in the interest of Nebuchadnezzar, -- whom Jeremiah
calls, xliii. 10, the servant of God.
Chapter xxxvii. 11-13, says, "And it came to pass, that, when
the army of the Chaldeans was broken up from Jerusalem, for fear of
Pharaoh's army, that Jeremiah went forth out of Jerusalem, to go
(as this account states) into the land of Benjamin, to separate
himself thence in the midst of the people; and when he was in the
gate of Benjamin a captain of the ward was there, whose name was
Irijah ... and he took Jeremiah the prophet, saying, Thou fallest
away to the Chaldeans; then Jeremiah said, It is false; I fall not
away to the Chaldeans." Jeremiah being thus stopt and accused, was,
after being examined, committed to prison, on suspicion of being a
traitor, where he remained, as is stated in the last verse of this
chapter.
But the next chapter gives an account of the imprisonment of
Jeremiah, which has no connection with this account, but ascribes
his imprisonment to another circumstance, and for which we must go
back to chapter xxi. It is there stated, ver. 1, that Zedekiah sent
Pashur the son of Malchiah, and Zephaniah the son of Maaseiah the
priest, to Jeremiah, to enquire of him concerning Nebuchadnezzar,
whose army was then before Jerusalem; and Jeremiah said to them,
ver. 8, "Thus saith the Lord, Behold I set before you the way of
life, and the way of death; he that abideth in this city shall die
by the sword and by the famine, and by the pestilence; but he that
goeth out and falleth to the Clialdeans that besiege you, he shall
live, and his life shall be unto him for a prey."
This interview and conference breaks off abruptly at the end
of the 10th verse of chapter xxi.; and such is the disorder of this
book that we have to pass over sixteen chapters upon various
subjects, in order to come at the continuation and event of this
conference; and this brings us to the first verse of chapter
xxxviii., as I have just mentioned. The chapter opens with saying,
"Then Shaphatiah, the son of Mattan, Gedaliah the son of Pashur,
and Jucal the son of Shelemiah, and Pashur the son of Malchiah,
(here are more persons mentioned than in chapter xxi.) heard the
words that Jeremiah spoke unto all the people, saying, Thus saith
the Lord, He that remaineth in this city, shall die by the sword,
by famine, and by the pestilence; but he that goeth forth to the
Chaldeans shall live; for he shall have his life for a prey, and
shall live"; [which are the words of the conference;] therefore,
(say they to Zedekiah,) "We beseech thee, let this man be put to
death, for thus he weakeneth the hands of the men of war that
remain in this city, and the hands of all the people, in speaking
such words unto them; for this man seeketh not the welfare of the
people, but the hurt: "and at the 6th verse it is said, "Then they
took Jeremiah, and put him into the dungeon of Malchiah."
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
77
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
These two accounts are different and contradictory. The one
ascribes his imprisonment to his attempt to escape out of the city;
the other to his preaching and prophesying in the city; the one to
his being seized by the guard at the gate; the other to his being
accused before Zedekiah by the conferees. [I observed two chapters
in I Samuel (xvi. and xvii.) that contradict each other with
respect to David, and the manner he became acquainted with Saul; as
Jeremiah xxxvii. and xxxviii. contradict each other with respect to
the cause of Jeremiah's imprisonment.
In 1 Samuel, xvi., it is said, that an evil spirit of God
troubled Saul, and that his servants advised him (as a remedy) "to
seek out a man who was a cunning player upon the harp." And Saul
said, ver. 17, " Provide me now a man that can play well, and bring
him to me. Then answered one of his servants, and said, Behold, I
have seen a son of Jesse, the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in
playing, and a mighty man, and a man of war, and prudent in
matters, and a comely person, and the Lord is with him; wherefore
Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, Send me David, thy son.
And (verse 21) David came to Saul, and stood before him, and he
loved him greatly, and he became his armour-bearer; and when the
evil spirit from God was upon Saul, (verse 23) David took his harp,
and played with his hand, and Saul was refreshed, and was well."
But the next chapter (xvii.) gives an account, all different
to this, of the manner that Saul and David became acquainted. Here
it is ascribed to David's encounter with Goliah, when David was
sent by his father to carry provision to his brethren in the camp.
In the 55th verse of this chapter it is said, "And when Saul saw
David go forth against the Philistine (Goliah) he said to Abner,
the captain of the host, Abner, whose son is this youth? And Abner
said, As thy soul liveth, 0 king, I cannot tell. And the king said,
Enquire thou whose son the stripling is. And as David returned from
the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him
before Saul, with the head of the Philistine in his hand; and Saul
said unto him, Whose son art thou, thou young man? And David
answered, I am the son of thy servant, Jesse, the Betblehemite,"
These two accounts belie each other, because each of them supposes
Saul and David not to have known each other before. This book, the
Bible, is too ridiculous for criticism. -- Author.]
In the next chapter (Jer. xxxix.) we have another instance of
the disordered state of this book; for notwithstanding the siege of
the city by Nebuchadnezzar has been the subject of several of the
preceding chapters, particularly xxxvii. and xxxviii., chapter
xxxix. begins as if not a word had been said upon the subject, and
as if the reader was still to be informed of every particular
respecting it; for it begins with saying, ver. 1, "In the ninth
year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the tenth month, came
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and all his army, against
Jerusalem, and besieged it," etc.
But the instance in the last chapter (lii.) is still more
glaring; for though the story has been told over and over again,
this chapter still supposes the reader not to know anything of it,
for it begins by saying, ver. i, "Zedekiah was one and twenty years
old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
78
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
Jerusalem, and his mother's name was Hamutal, the daughter of
Jeremiah of Libnah." (Ver. 4,) "And it came to pass in the ninth
year of his reign, in the tenth month, that Nebuchadnezzar king of
Babylon came, he and all his army, against Jerusalem, and pitched
against it, and built forts against it," etc.
It is not possible that any one man, and more particularly
Jeremiah, could have been the writer of this book. The errors are
such as could not have been committed by any person sitting down to
compose a work. Were I, or any other man, to write in such a
disordered manner, no body would read what was written, and every
body would suppose that the writer was in a state of insanity. The
only way, therefore, to account for the disorder is, that the book
is a medley of detached unauthenticated anecdotes, put together by
some stupid book-maker, under the name of Jeremiah; because many of
them refer to him, and to the circumstances of the times he lived
in.
Of the duplicity, and of the false predictions of Jeremiah, I
shall mention two instances, and then proceed to review the
remainder of the Bible.
It appears from chapter xxxviii. that when Jeremiah was in
prison, Zedekiah sent for him, and at this interview, which was
private, Jeremiah pressed it strongly on Zedekiah to surrender
himself to the enemy. "If," says he, (ver. 17,) thou wilt assuredly
go forth unto the king of Babylon's princes, then thy soul shall
live," etc. Zedekiah was apprehensive that what passed at this
conference should be known; and he said to Jeremiah, (ver. 25,) "If
the princes [meaning those of Judah] hear that I have talked with
thee, and they come unto thee, and say unto thee, Declare unto us
now what thou hast said unto the king; hide it not from us, and we
will not put thee to death; and also what the king said unto thee;
then thou shalt say unto them, I presented my supplication before
the king that he would not cause me to return to Jonathan's house,
to die there. Then came all the princes unto Jeremiah, and asked
him, and "he told them according to all the words the king had
comenanded." Thus, this man of God, as he is called, could tell a
lie, or very strongly prevaricatc, when he supposed it would answer
his purpose; for certainly he did not go to Zedekiah to make this
supplication, neither did he make it; he went because he was sent
for, and he employed that opportunity to advise Zedekiah to
surrender himself to Nebuchadnezzar.
In chapter xxxiv. 2-5, is a prophecy of Jeremiah to Zedekiah
in these words: "Thus saith the Lord, Behold I will give this city
into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will burn it with
fire; and thou shalt not escape out of his hand, but thou shalt
surely be taken, and delivered into his hand; and thine eyes shall
behold the eyes of the king of Babylon, and he shall speak with
thee mouth to mouth, and thou shalt go to Babylon. Yet hear the
word of the Lord; O Zedekiah, king, of Judah, thus saith the Lord,
Thou shalt not die by the sword, but thou shalt die in Peace; and
with the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings that were before
thee, so shall they burn odours for thee, and they will lament
thee, saying, Ah, Lord! for I have pronounced the word, saith the
Lord."
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
79
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
Now, instead of Zedekiah beholding the eyes of the king of
Babylon, and speaking with him mouth to mouth, and dying in peace,
and with the burning of odours, as at the funeral of his fathers,
(as Jeremiah had declared the Lord himself had pronounced,) the
reverse, according to chapter Iii., 10, 11 was the case; it is
there said, that the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah
before his eyes: then he put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound
him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison
till the day of his death.
What then can we say of these prophets, but that they are
impostors and liars?
As for Jeremiah, he experienced none of those evils. He was
taken into favour by Nebuchadnezzar, who gave him in charge to the
captain of the guard (xxxix, 12), "Take him (said he) and look well
to him, and do him no harm; but do unto him even as he shall say
unto thee." Jeremiah joined himself afterwards to Nebuchadnezzar,
and went about prophesying for him against the Egyptians, who had
marched to the relief of Jerusalem while it was besieged. Thus much
for another of the lying prophets, and the book that bears his
name.
I have been the more particular in treating of the books
ascribed to Isaiah and Jeremiah, because those two are spoken of in
the books of Kings and Chronicles, which the others are not. The
remainder of the books ascribed to the men called prophets I shall
not trouble myself much about; but take them collectively into the
observations I shall offer on the character of the men styled
prophets.
In the former part of the 'Age of Reason,' I have said that
the word prophet was the Bible-word for poet, and that the flights
and metaphors of Jewish poets have been foolishly erected into what
are now called prophecies. I am sufficiently justified in this
opinion, not only because the books called the prophecies are
written in poetical language, but because there is no word in the
Bible, except it be the word prophet, that describes what we mean
by a poet. I have also said, that the word signified a performer
upon musical instruments, of which I have given some instances;
such as that of a company of prophets, prophesying with psalteries,
with tabrets, with pipes, with harps, etc., and that Saul
prophesied with them, 1 Sam. x., 5. It appears from this passage,
and from other parts in the book of Samuel, that the word prophet
was confined to signify poetry and music; for the person who was
supposed to have a visionary insight into concealed things, was not
a prophet but a seer, [I know not what is the Hebrew word that
corresponds to the word seer in English; but I observe it is
translated into French by Le Voyant, from the verb voir to see, and
mhich means the person who sees, or the seer. -- Author.
The Hebrew word for Seer, in 1 Samuel ix., transliterated, is
chozeh, the gazer, it is translated in Is. xlvii. 13, "the
stargazers." -- Editor.] (i Sam, ix. 9;) and it was not till
after the word seer went out of use (which most probably was when
Saul banished those he called wizards) that the profession of the
seer, or the art of seeing, became incorporated into the word
prophet.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
80
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
According to the modern meaning of the word prophet and
prophesying, it signifies foretelling events to a great distance of
time; and it became necessary to the inventors of the gospel to
give it this latitude of meaning, in order to apply or to stretch
what they call the prophecies of the Old Testament, to the times of
the New. But according to the Old Testament, the prophesying of the
seer, and afterwards of the prophet, so far as the meaning of the
word "seer" was incorporated into that of prophet, had reference
only to things of the time then passing, or very closely connected
with it; such as the event of a battle they were going to engage
in, or of a journey, or of any enterprise they were going to
undertake, or of any circumstance then pending, or of any
difficulty they were then in; all of which had immediate reference
to themselves (as in the case already mentioned of Ahaz and Isaiah
with respect to the expression, Behold a virgin shall conceive and
bear a son,) and not to any distant future time. It was that kind
of prophesying that orresponds to what we call fortune-telling;
such as casting nativities, predicting riches, fortunate or
unfortunate marriages, conjuring for lost goods, etc.; and it is
the fraud of the Christian church, not that of the Jews, and the
ignorance and the superstition of modern, not that of ancient
times, that elevated those poetical, musical, conjuring, dreaming,
strolling gentry, into the rank they have since had.
But, besides this general character of all the prophets, they
had also a particular character. They were in parties, and they
prophesied for or against, according to the party they were with;
as the poetical and political writers of the present day write in
defence of the party they associate with against the other.
After the Jews were divided into two nations, that of Judah
and that of Israel, each party had its prophets, who abused and
accused each other of being false prophets, lying prophets,
impostors, etc.
The prophets of the party of Judah prophesied against the
prophets of the party of Israel; and those of the party of Israel
against those of Judah. This party prophesying showed itself
immediately on the separation under the first two rival kings,
Rehoboam and Jeroboam. The prophet that cursed, or prophesied
against the altar that Jeroboam had built in Bethel, was of the
party of Judah, where Rehoboam was king; and he was way-laid on his
return home by a prophet of the party of Israel, who said unto him
(i Kings xiii.) "Art thou the man of God that came from Judah? and
he said, I am." Then the prophet of the party of Israel said to him
"I am a prophet also, as thou art, [signifying of Judah,] and an
angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, saying, Bring him back
with thee unto thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water;
but (says the 18th verse) he lied unto him." The event, however,
according to the story, is, that the prophet of Judah never got
back to Judah; for he was found dead on the road by the contrivance
of the prophet of Israel, who no doubt was called a true prophet by
his own party, and the prophet of Judah a lying brophet.
In 2 Kings, iii., a story is related of prophesying or
conjuring that shews, in several particulars, the character of a
prophet. Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and Joram king of Israel, had
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
81
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
for a while ceased their party animosity, and entered into an
alliance; and these two, together with the king of Edom, engaged in
a war against the king of Moab. After uniting and marching their
armies, the story says, they were in great distress for water, upon
which Jehoshaphat said, "Is there not here a prophet of the Lord,
that we may enquire of the Lord by him? and one of the servants of
the king of Israel said here is Elisha. [Elisha was of the party of
Judah.] And Jehoshaphat the king of Judah said, The word of the
Lord is with him." The story then says, that these three kings went
down to Elisha; and when Elisha [who, as I have said, was a
Judahmite prophet] saw the King of Israel, he said unto him, "What
have I to do with thee, get thee to the prophets of thy father and
the prophets of thy mother. Nay but, said the king of Israel, the
Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into
the hands of the king of Moab," (meaning because of the distress
they were in for water;) upon which Elisha said, "As the Lord of
hosts liveth before whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard
the presence of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, I would not look
towards thee nor see thee." Here is all the venom and vulgarity of
a party prophet. We are now to see the performance, or manner of
prophesying.
Ver. 15. "Bring me," (said Elisha), "a minstrel; and it came
to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came
upon him." Here is the farce of the conjurer. Now for the prophecy:
"And Elisha said, [singing most probably to the tune he was
playing], Thus saith the Lord, Make this valley full of ditches;
"which was just telling them what every countryman could have told
them without either fiddle or farce, that the way to get water was
to dig for it.
But as every conjuror is not famous alike for the same thing,
so neither were those prophets; for though all of them, at least
those I have spoken of, were famous for lying, some of them
excelled in cursing. Elisha, whom I have just mentioned, was a
chief in this branch of prophesying; it was he that cursed the
forty-two children in the name of the Lord, whom the two she-bears
came and devoured. We are to suppose that those children were of
the party of Israel; but as those who will curse will lie, there is
just as much credit to be given to this story of Elisha's two she-
bears as there is to that of the Dragon of Wantley, of whom it is
said:
Poor children three devoured be,
That could not with him grapple;
And at one sup he eat them up,
As a man would eat an apple.
There was another description of men called prophets, that
amused themselves with dreams and visions; but whether by night or
by day we know not. These, if they were not quite harmless, were
but little mischievous. Of this class are
EZEKIEL and DANIEL; and the first question upon these books,
as upon all the others, is, Are they genuine? that is, were they
written by Ezekiel and Daniel?
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
82
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
Of this there is no proof; but so far as my own opinion goes,
I am more inclined to believe they were, than that they were not.
My reasons for this opinion are as follows: First, Because those
books do not contain internal evidence to prove they were not
written by Ezekiel and Daniel, as the books ascribed to Moses,
Joshua, Samuel, etc., prove they were not written by Moses, Joshua,
Samuel, etc.
Secondly, Because they were not written till after the
Babylonish captivity began; and there is good reason to believe
that not any book in the bible was written before that period; at
least it is proveable, from the books themselves, as I have already
shown, that they were not written till after the commencement of
the Jewish monarchy.
Thirdly, Because the manner in which the books ascribed to
Ezekiel and Daniel are written, agrees with the condition these men
were in at the time of writing them.
Had the numerous commentators and priests, who have foolishly
employed or wasted their time in pretending to expound and unriddle
those books, been carred into captivity, as Ezekiel and Daniel
were, it would greatly have improved their intellects in
comprehending the reason for this mode of writing, and have saved
them the trouble of racking their invention, as they have done to
no purpose; for they would have found that themselves would be
obliged to write whatever they had to write, respecting their own
affairs, or those of their friends, or of their country, in a
concealed manner, as those men have done.
These two books differ from all the rest; for it is only these
that are filled with accounts of dreams and visions: and this
difference arose from the situation the writers were in as
prisoners of war, or prisoners of state, in a foreign country,
which obliged them to convey even the most trifling information to
each other, and all their political projects or opinions, in
obscure and metaphorical terms. They pretend to have dreamed
dreams, and seen visions, because it was unsafe for them to speak
facts or plain language. We ought, however, to suppose, that the
persons to whom they wrote understood what they meant, and that it
was not intended anybody else should. But these busy commentators
and priests have been puzzling their wits to find out what it was
not intended they should know, and with which they have nothing to
do.
Ezekiel and Daniel were carried prisoners to Babylon, under
the first captivity, in the time of Jehoiakim, nine years before
the second captivity in the time of Zedekiah. The Jews were then
still numerous, and had considerable force at Jerusalem; and as it
is natural to suppose that men in the situation of Ezekiel and
Daniel would be meditating the recovery of their country, and their
own deliverance, it is reasonable to suppose that the accounts of
dreams and visions with which these books are filled, are no other
than a disguised mode of correspondence to facilitate those
objects: it served them as a cypher, or secret alphabet. If they
are not this, they are tales, reveries, and nonsense; or at least
a fanciful way of wearing off the wearisomeness of captivity; but
the presumption is, they are the former.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
83
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
Ezekiel begins his book by speaking of a vision of cherubims,
and of a wheel within a wheel, which he says he saw by the river
Chebar, in the land of his captivity. Is it not reasonable to
suppose that by the cherubims he meant the temple at Jerusalem,
where they had figures of cherubims? and by a wheel within a wheel
(which as a figure has always been understood to signify political
contrivance) the project or means of recovering Jerusalem? In the
latter part of his book he supposes himself transported to
Jerusalem, and into the temple; and he refers back to the vision on
the river Chebar, and says, (xliii- 3,) that this last vision was
like the vision on the river Chebar; which indicates that those
pretended dreams and visions had for their object the recovery of
Jerusalem, and nothing further.
As to the romantic interpretations and applications, wild as
the dreams and visions they undertake to explain, which
commentators and priests have made of those books, that of
converting them into things which they call prophecies, and making
them bend to times and circumstances as far remote even as the
present day, it shows the fraud or the extreme folly to which
credulity or priestcraft can go.
Scarcely anything can be more absurd than to suppose that men
situated as Ezekiel and Daniel were, whose country was over-run,
and in the possession of the enemy, all their friends and relations
in captivity abroad, or in slavery at home, or massacred, or in
continual danger of it; scarcely any thing, I say, can be more
absurd than to suppose that such men should find nothing to do but
that of employing their time and their thoughts about what was to
happen to other nations a thousand or two thousand years after they
were dead; at the same time nothing more natural than that they
should meditate the recovery of Jerusalem, and their own
deliverance; and that this was the sole object of all the obscure
and apparently frantic writing contained in those books.
In this sense the mode of writing used in those two books
being forced by necessity, and not adopted by choice, is not
irrational; but, if we are to use the books as prophecies, they are
false. In Ezekiel xxix. 11., speaking of Egypt, it is said, "No
foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast pass through
it; neither shall it be inhabited for forty years." This is what
never came to pass, and consequently it is false, as all the books
I have already reviewed are. -- I here close this part of the
subject.
In the former part of 'The Age of Reason' I have spoken of
Jonah, and of the story of him and the whale. -- A fit story for
ridicule, if it was written to be believed; or of laughter, if it
was intended to try what credulity could swallow; for, if it could
swallow Jonah and the whale it could swallow anything.
But, as is already shown in the observations on the book of
Job and of Proverbs, it is not always certain which of the books in
the Bible are originally Hebrew, or only translations from the
books of the Gentiles into Hebrew; and, as the book of Jonah, so
far from treating of the affairs of the Jews, says nothing upon
that subject, but treats altogether of the Gentiles, it is more
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
84
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
probable that it is a book of the Gentiles than of the Jews, [I
have read in an ancient Persian poem (Saadi, I believe, but have
mislaid the reference) this phrase: "And now the whale swallowed
Jonah: the sun set." -- Editer.] and that it has been written as
a fable to expose the nonsense, and satyrize the vicious and
malignant character, of a Bible-prophet, or a predicting priest.
Jonah is represented, first as a disobedient prophet, running
away from his mission, and taking shelter aboard a vessel of the
Gentiles, bound from Joppa to Tarshish; as if he ignorantly
supposed, by such a paltry contrivance, he could hide himself where
God could not find him. The vessel is overtaken by a storm at sea;
and the mariners, all of whom are Gentiles, believing it to be a
judgement on account of some one on board who had committed a
crime, agreed to cast lots to discover the offender; and the lot
fell upon Jonah. But before this they had cast all their wares and
merchandise over-board to lighten the vessel, while Jonah, like a
stupid fellow, was fast asleep in the hold.
After the lot had designated Jonah to be the offender, they
questioned him to know who and what he was? and he told them he was
an Hebrew; and the story implies that he confessed himself to be
guilty. But these Gentiles, instead of sacrificing him at once
without pity or mercy, as a company of Bible-prophets or priests
would have done by a Gentile in the same case, and as it is related
Samuel had done by Agag, and Moses by the women and children, they
endeavoured to save him, though at the risk of their own lives: for
the account says, "Nevertheless [that is, though Jonah was a Jew
and a foreigner, and the cause of all their misfortunes, and the
loss of their cargo] the men rowed hard to bring the boat to land,
but they could not, for the sea wrought and was tempestuous against
them." Still however they were unwilling to put the fate of the lot
into execution; and they cried, says the account, unto the Lord,
saying, "We beseech thee, O Lord, let us not perish for this man's
life, and lay not upon us innocent blood; for thou, O Lord, hast
done as it pleased thee." Meaning thereby, that they did not
presume to judge Jonah guilty, since that he might be innocent; but
that they considered the lot that had fallen upon him as a decree
of God, or as it pleased God. The address of this prayer shows that
the Gentiles worshipped one Supreme Being, and that they were not
idolaters as the Jews represented them to be. But the storm still
continuing, and the danger encreasing, they put the fate of the lot
into execution, and cast Jonah in the sea; where, according to the
story, a great fish swallowed him up whole and alive!
We have now to consider Jonah securely housed from the storm
in the fish's belly. Here we are told that he prayed; but the
prayer is a made-up prayer, taken from various parts of the Psalms,
without connection or consistency, and adapted to the distress, but
not at all to the condition that Jonah was in. It is such a prayer
as a Gentile, who might know something of the Psalms, could copy
out for him. This circumstance alone, were there no other, is
sufficient to indicate that the whole is a made-up story. The
prayer, however, is supposed to have answered the purpose, and the
story goes on, (taking-off at the same time the cant language of a
Bible-prophet,) saying, "The Lord spake unto the fish, and it
vomited out Jonah upon dry land."
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
85
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
Jonah then received a second mission to Nineveh, with which he
sets out; and we have now to consider him as a preacher. The
distress he is represented to have suffered, the remembrance of his
own disobedience as the cause of it, and the miraculous escape he
is supposed to have had, were sufficient, one would conceive, to
have impressed him with sympathy and benevolence in the execution
of his mission; but, instead of this, he enters the city with
denunciation and malediction in his mouth, crying, "Yet forty days,
and Nineveh shall be overthrown."
We have now to consider this supposed missionary in the last
act of his mission; and here it is that the malevolent spirit of a
Bible-prophet, or of a predicting priest, appears in all that
blackness of character that men ascribe to the being they call the
devil.
Having published his predictions, he withdrew, says the story,
to the east side of the city. -- But for what? not to contemplate
in retirement the mercy of his Creator to himself or to others, but
to wait, with malignant impatience, the destruction of Nineveh. It
came to pass, however, as the story relates, that the Ninevites
reformed, and that God, according to the Bible phrase, repented him
of the evil he had said he would do unto them, and did it not.
This, saith the first verse of the last chapter, displeased Jonah
exceedingly and he was very angry. His obdurate heart would rather
that all Nineveh should be destroyed, and every soul, young and
old, perish in its ruins, than that his prediction should not be
fulfilled. To expose the character of a prophet still more, a gourd
is made to grow up in the night, that promises him an agreeable
shelter from the heat of the sun, in the place to which he is
retired; and the next morning it dies.
Here the rage of the prophet becomes excessive, and he is
ready to destroy himself. "It is better, said he, for me to die
than to live." This brings on a supposed expostulation between the
Almighty and the prophet; in which the former says, "Doest thou
well to be angry for the gourd? And Jonah said, I do well to be
angry even unto death. Then said the Lord, Thou hast had pity on
the gourd, for which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it to
grow, which came up in a night, and perished in a night; and should
not I spare Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than
threescore thousand persons, that cannot discern between their
right hand and their left?"
Here is both the winding up of the satire, and the moral of
the fable. As a satire, it strikes against the character of all the
Bible-prophets, and against all the indiscriminate judgements upon
men, women and children, with which this lying book, the bible, is
crowded; such as Noah's flood, the destruction of the cities of
Sodom and Gomorrah, the extirpation of the Canaanites, even to
suckling infants, and women with child; because the same reflection
'that there are more than threescore thousand persons that cannot
discern between their right hand and their left,' meaning young
children, applies to all their cases. It satirizes also the
supposed partiality of the Creator for one nation more than for
another.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
86
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
As a moral, it preaches against the malevolent spirit of
prediction; for as certainly as a man predicts ill, he becomes
inclined to wish it. The pride of having his judgment right hardens
his heart, till at last he beholds with satisfaction, or sees with
disappointment, the accomplishment or the failure of his
predictions. -- This book ends with the same kind of strong and
well-directed point against prophets, prophecies and indiscriminate
judgements, as the chapter that Benjamin Franklin made for the
Bible, about Abraham and the stranger, ends against the intolerant
spirit of religious persecutions -- Thus much for the book Jonah.
[The story of Abraham and the Fire-worshipper, ascribed to
Franklin, is from Saadi. (See my "Sacred Anthology," p. 61.) Paine
has often been called a "mere scoffer," but he seems to have been
among the first to treat with dignity the book of Jonah, so
especially liable to the ridicule of superficial readers, and
discern in it the highest conception of Deity known to the Old
Testament. -- Editor.]
Of the poetical parts of the Bible, that are called
prophecies, I have spoken in the former part of 'The Age of
Reason,' and already in this, where I have said that the word for
prophet is the Bible-word for Poet, and that the flights and
metaphors of those poets, many of which have become obscure by the
lapse of time and the change of circumstances, have been
ridiculously erected into things called prophecies, and applied to
purposes the writers never thought of. When a priest quotes any of
those passages, he unriddles it agreeably to his own views, and
imposes that explanation upon his congregation as the meaning of
the writer. The whore of Babylon has been the common whore of all
the priests, and each has accused the other of keeping the
strumpet; so well do they agree in their explanations.
There now remain only a few books, which they call books of
the lesser prophets; and as I have already shown that the greater
are impostors, it would be cowardice to disturb the repose of the
little ones. Let them sleep, then, in the arms of their nurses, the
priests, and both be forgotten together.
I have now gone through the Bible, as a man would go through
a wood with an axe on his shoulder, and fell trees. Here they lie;
and the priests, if they can, may replant them. They may, perhaps,
stick them in the ground, but they will never make them grow. -- I
pass on to the books of the New Testament.
CHAPTER II.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
THE New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon the
prophecies of the Old; if so, it must follow the fate of its
foundation.
As it is nothing extraordinary that a woman should be with
child before she was married, and that the son she might bring
forth should be executed, even unjustly, I see no reason for not
believing that such a woman as Mary, and such a man as Joseph, and
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
87
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
Jesus, existed; their mere existence is a matter of indifference,
about which there is no ground either to believe or to disbelieve,
and which comes under the common head of, It may be so, and what
then? The probability however is that there were such persons, or
at least such as resembled them in part of the circumstances,
because almost all romantic stories have been suggested by some
actual circumstance; as the adventures of Robinson Crusoe, not a
word of which is true, were suggested by the case of Alexander
Selkirk.
It is not then the existence or the non-existence, of the
persons that I trouble myself about; it is the fable of Jesus
Christ, as told in the New Testament, and the wild and visionary
doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend. The story, taking
it as it is told, is blasphemously obscene. It gives an account of
a young woman engaged to be married, and while under this
engagement, she is, to speak plain language, debauched by a ghost,
under the impious pretence, (Luke i. 35,) that "the Holy Ghost
shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow
thee." Notwithstanding which, Joseph afterwards marries her,
cohabits with her as his wife, and in his turn rivals the ghost.
This is putting the story into intelligible language, and when told
in this manner, there is not a priest but must be ashamed to own
it. [Mary, the supposed virgin, mother of Jesus, had several other
children, sons and daughters. See Matt. xiii. 55, 56. -- Author.]
Obscenity in matters of faith, however wrapped up, is always
a token of fable and imposture; for it is necessary to our serious
belief in God, that we do not connect it with stories that run, as
this does, into ludicrous interpretations. This story is, upon the
face of it, the same kind of story as that of Jupiter and Leda, or
Jupiter and Europa, or any of the amorous adventures of Jupiter;
and shews, as is already stated in the former part of 'The Age of
Reason,' that the Christian faith is built upon the heathen
Mythology.
As the historical parts of the New Testament, so far as
concerns Jesus Christ, are confined to a very short space of time,
less than two years, and all within the same country, and nearly to
the same spot, the discordance of time, place, and circumstance,
which detects the fallacy of the books of the Old Testament, and
proves them to be impositions, cannot be expected to be found here
in the same abundance. The New Testament compared with the Old, is
like a farce of one act, in which there is not room for very
numerous violations of the unities. There are, however, some
glaring contradictions, which, exclusive of the fallacy of the
pretended prophecies, are sufficient to show the story of Jesus
Christ to be false.
I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted,
first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not
prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree, and the
whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of
a story proves the whole cannot be true. The agreement does not
prove truth, but the disagreement proves falsehood positively.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
88
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
The history of Jesus Christ is contained in the four books
ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. -- The first chapter of
Matthew begins with giving a genealogy of Jesus Christ; and in the
third chapter of Luke there is also given a genealogy of Jesus
Christ. Did these two agree, it would not prove the genealogy to be
true, because it might nevertheless be a fabrication; but as they
contradict each other in every particular, it proves falsehood
absolutely. If Matthew speaks truth, Luke speaks falsehood; and if
Luke speaks truth, Matthew speaks falsehood: and as there is no
authority for believing one more than the other, there is no
authority for believing either; and if they cannot be believed even
in the very first thing they say, and set out to prove, they are
not entitled to be believed in any thing they say afterwards. Truth
is an uniform thing; and as to inspiration and revelation, were we
to admit it, it is impossible to suppose it can be contradictory.
Either then the men called apostles were imposters, or the books
ascribed to them have been written by other persons, and fathered
upon them, as is the case in the Old Testament.
The book of Matthew gives (i. 6), a genealogy by name from
David, up, through Joseph, the husband of Mary, to Christ; and
makes there to be twent eight generations. The book of Luke gives
also a genealogy by name from Christ, through Joseph the husband of
Mary, down to David, and makes there to be forty-three generations;
besides which, there is only the two names of David and Joseph that
are alike in the two lists. -- I here insert both genealogical
lists, and for the sake of perspicuity and comparison, have placed
them both in the same direction, that is, from Joseph down to
David.
Genealogy, according to Genealogy, according to
Matthew. Luke.
Christ Christ
2 Joseph 2 Joseph
3 Jacob 3 Heli
4 Matthan 4 Matthat
5 Eleazer 5 Levi
6 Eliud 6 Melchl
7 Achim 7 Janna
8 Sadoc 8 Joseph
9 Azor 9 Mattathias
10 Eliakim 10 Amos
11 Abiud 11 Naum
12 Zorobabel 12 Esli
13 Salathiel 13 Nagge
14 Jechonias 14 Maath
15 Josias 15 Mattathias
16 Amon 16 Semei
17 Manasses 17 Joseph
18 Ezekias 18 Juda
19 Achaz 19 Joanna
20 Joatham 20 Rhesa
21 Ozias 21 Zorobabel
22 Joram 22 Salathiel
23 Josaphat 23 Neri
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
89
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
24 Asa 24 Melchi
25 Abia 25 Addi
26 Roboam 26 Cosam
27 Solomon 27 Elmodam
29 David * 28 Er
29 Jose
30 Eliezer
31 Jorim
32 Matthat
33 Levi
34 Simeon
35 Juda
36 Joseph
37 Jonan
38 Eliakim
39 Melea
40 Menan
41 Mattatha
42 Nathan
43 David
[NOTE: * From the birth of David to the birth of Christ is upwards
of 1080 years; and as the life-time of Christ is not included,
there are but 27 full generations. To find therefore the average
age of each person mentioned in the list, at the time his first son
was born, it is only necessary to divide 1080 by 27, which gives 40
years for each person. As the life-time of man was then but of the
same extent it is now, it is an absurdity to suppose, that 27
following generations should all be old bachelors, before they
married; and the more so, when we are told that Solomon, the next
in succession to David, had a house full of wives and mistresses
before he was twenty-one years of age. So far from this genealogy
being a solemn truth, it is not even a reasonable lie. The list of
Luke gives about twenty-six years for the average age, and this is
too much. -- Author.]
Now, if these men, Matthew and Luke, set out with a falsehood
between them (as these two accounts show they do) in the very
commencement of their history of Jesus Christ, and of who, and of
what he was, what authority (as I have before asked) is there left
for believing the strange things they tell us afterwards? If they
cannot be believed in their account of his natural genealogy, how
are we to believe them when they tell us he was the son of God,
begotten by a ghost; and that an angel announced this in secret to
his mother? If they lied in one genealogy, why are we to believe
them in the other? If his natural genealogy be manufactured, which
it certainly is, why are we not to suppose that his celestial
genealogy is manufactured also, and that the whole is fabulous? Can
any man of serious reflection hazard his future happiness upon the
belief of a story naturally impossible, repugnant to every idea of
decency, and related by persons already detected of falsehood? Is
it not more safe that we stop ourselves at the plain, pure, and
unmixed belief of one God, which is deism, than that we commit
ourselves on an ocean of improbable, irrational, indecent, and
contradictory tales?
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
90
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
The first question, however, upon the books of the New
Testament, as upon those of the Old, is, Are they genuine? were
they written by the persons to whom they are ascribed? For it is
upon this ground only that the strange things related therein have
been credited. Upon this point, there is no direct proof for or
against; and all that this state of a case proves is doubtfulness;
and doubtfulness is the opposite of belief. The state, therefore,
that the books are in, proves against themselves as far as this
kind of proof can go.
But, exclusive of this, the presumption is that the books
called the Evangelists, and ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John, were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and that
they are impositions. The disordered state of the history in these
four books, the silence of one book upon matters related in the
other, and the disagreement that is to be found among them, implies
that they are the productions of some unconnected individuals, many
years after the things they pretend to relate, each of whom made
his own legend; and not the writings of men living intimately
together, as the men called apostles are supposed to have done: in
fine, that they have been manufactured, as the books of the Old
Testament have been, by other persons than those whose names they
bear.
The story of the angel announcing what the church calls the
immaculate conception, is not so much as mentioned in the books
ascribed to Mark, and John; and is differently related in Matthew
and Luke. The former says the angel, appeared to Joseph; the latter
says, it was to Mary; but either Joseph or Mary was the worst
evidence that could have been thought of; for it was others that
should have testified for them, and not they for themselves. Were
any girl that is now with child to say, and even to swear it, that
she was gotten with child by a ghost, and that an angel told her
so, would she be believed? Certainly she would not. Why then are we
to believe the same thing of another girl whom we never saw, told
by nobody knows who, nor when, nor where? How strange and
inconsistent is it, that the same circumstance that would weaken
the belief even of a probable story, should be given as a motive
for believing this one, that has upon the face of it every token of
absolute impossibility and imposture.
The story of Herod destroying all the children under two years
old, belongs altogether to the book of Matthew; not one of the rest
mentions anything about it. Had such a circumstance been true, the
universality of it must have made it known to all the writers, and
the thing would have been too striking to have been omitted by any.
This writer tell us, that Jesus escaped this slaughter, because
Joseph and Mary were warned by an angel to flee with him into
Egypt; but he forgot to make provision for John [the Baptist], who
was then under two years of age. John, however, who staid behind,
fared as well as Jesus, who fled; and therefore the story
circumstantially belies itself.
Not any two of these writers agree in reciting, exactly in the
same words, the written inscription, short as it is, which they
tell us was put over Christ when he was crucified; and besides
this, Mark says, He was crucified at the third hour, (nine in the
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
91
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
morning;) and John says it was the sixth hour, (twelve at noon.)
[According to John, (xix. 14) the sentence was not passed till
about the sixth hour (noon,) and consequently the execution could
not be till the afternoon; but Mark (xv. 25) Says expressly that he
was crucified at the third hour, (nine in the moming,) -- Author.]
The inscription is thus stated in those books:
Matthew -- This is Jesus the king of the Jews.
Mark -- The king of the Jews.
Luke -- This is the king of the Jews.
John -- Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews.
We may infer from these circumstances, trivial as they are,
that those writers, whoever they were, and in whatever time they
lived, were not present at the scene. The only one of the men
called apostles who appears to have been near to the spot was
Peter, and when he was accused of being one of Jesus's followers,
it is said, (Matthew xxvi. 74,) "Then Peter began to curse and to
swear, saying, I know not the man:" yet we are now called to
believe the same Peter, convicted, by their own account, of
perjury. For what reason, or on what authority, should we do this?
The accounts that are given of the circumstances, that they
tell us attended the crucifixion, are differently related in those
four books.
The book ascribed to Matthew says 'there was darkness over all
the land from the sixth hour unto the ninth hour -- that the veil
of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom -- that
there was an earthquake -- that the rocks rent -- that the graves
opened, that the bodies of many of the saints that slept arose and
came out of their graves after the resurrection, and went into the
holy city and appeared unto many.' Such is the account which this
dashing writer of the book of Matthew gives, but in which he is not
supported by the writers of the other books.
The writer of the book ascribed to Mark, in detailing the
circumstances of the crucifixion, makes no mention of any
earthquake, nor of the rocks rending, nor of the graves opening,
nor of the dead men walking out. The writer of the book of Luke is
silent also upon the same points. And as to the writer of the book
of John, though he details all the circumstances of the crucifixion
down to the burial of Christ, he says nothing about either the
darkness -- the veil of the temple -- the earthquake -- the rocks
-- the graves -- nor the dead men.
Now if it had been true that these things had happened, and if
the writers of these books had lived at the time they did happen,
and had been the persons they are said to be -- namely, the four
men called apostles, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, -- it was not
possible for them, as true historians, even without the aid of
inspiration, not to have recorded them. The things, supposing them
to have been facts, were of too much notoriety not to have been
known, and of too much importance not to have been told. All these
supposed apostles must have been witnesses of the earthquake, if
there had been any, for it was not possible for them to have been
absent from it: the opening of the graves and resurrection of the
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
92
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
dead men, and their walking about the city, is of still greater
importance than the earthquake. An earthquake is always possible,
and natural, and proves nothing; but this opening of the graves is
supernatural, and directly in point to their doctrine, their cause,
and their apostleship. Had it been true, it would have filled up
whole chapters of those books, and been the chosen theme and
general chorus of all the writers; but instead of this, little and
trivial things, and mere prattling conversation of 'he said this
and she said that' are often tediously detailed, while this most
important of all, had it been true, is passed off in a slovenly
manner by a single dash of the pen, and that by one writer only,
and not so much as hinted at by the rest.
It is an easy thing to tell a lie, but it is difficult to
support the lie after it is told. The writer of the book of Matthew
should have told us who the saints were that came to life again,
and went into the city, and what became of them afterwards, and who
it was that saw them; for he is not hardy enough to say that he saw
them himself; -- whether they came out naked, and all in natural
buff, he-saints and she-saints, or whether they came full dressed,
and where they got their dresses; whether they went to their former
habitations, and reclaimed their wives, their husbands, and their
property, and how they were received; whether they entered
ejectments for the recovery of their possessions, or brought
actions of crim. con. against the rival interlopers; whether they
remained on earth, and followed their former occupation of
preaching or working; or whether they died again, or went back to
their graves alive, and buried themselves.
Strange indeed, that an army of saints should retum to life,
and nobody know who they were, nor who it was that saw them, and
that not a word more should be said upon the subject, nor these
saints have any thing to tell us! Had it been the prophets who (as
we are told) had formerly prophesied of these things, they must
have had a great deal to say. They could have told us everything,
and we should have had posthumous prophecies, with notes and
commentaries upon the first, a little better at least than we have
now. Had it been Moses, and Aaron, and Joshua, and Samuel, and
David, not an unconverted Jew had remained in all Jerusalem. Had it
been John the Baptist, and the saints of the times then present,
everybody would have known them, and they would have out-preached
and out-famed all the other apostles. But, instead of this, these
saints are made to pop up, like Jonah's gourd in the night, for no
purpose at all but to wither in the morning. -- Thus much for this
part of the story.
The tale of the resurrection follows that of the crucifixion;
and in this as well as in that, the writers, whoever they were,
disagree so much as to make it evident that none of them were
there.
The book of Matthew states, that when Christ was put in the
sepulchre the Jews applied to Pilate for a watch or a guard to be
placed over the septilchre, to prevent the body being stolen by the
disciples; and that in consequence of this request the sepulchre
was made sure, sealing the stone that covered the mouth, and
setting a watch. But the other books say nothing about this
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
93
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
application, nor about the sealing, nor the guard, nor the watch;
and according to their accounts, there were none. Matthew, however,
follows up this part of the story of the guard or the watch with a
second part, that I shall notice in the conclusion, as it serves to
detect the fallacy of those books.
The book of Matthew continues its account, and says, (xxviii.
1,) that at the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn, towards
the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary,
to see the sepulchre. Mark says it was sun-rising, and John says it
was dark. Luke says it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the
mother of James, and other women, that came to the sepulchre; and
John states that Mary Magdalene came alone. So well do they agree
about their first evidence! They all, however, appear to have known
most about Mary Magdalene; she was a woman of large acquaintance,
and it was not an ill conjecture that she might be upon the stroll.
[The Bishop of Llandaff, in his famous "Apology," censured Paine
severely for this insinuation against Mary Magdalene, but the
censure really falls on our English version, which, by a chapter-
heading (Luke vii.), has unwarrantably identified her as the sinful
woman who anointed Jesus, and irrevocably branded her. -- Editor.]
The book of Matthew goes on to say (ver. 2): "And behold there
was a great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord descended from
heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat
upon it" But the other books say nothing about any earthquake, nor
about the angel rolling back the stone, and sitting upon it and,
according to their account, there was no angel sitting there. Mark
says the angel [Mark says "a young man," and Luke "two men." --
Editor.] was within the sepulchre, sitting on the right side. Luke
says there were two, and they were both standing up; and John says
they were both sitting down, one at the head and the other at the
feet.
Matthew says, that the angel that was sitting upon the stone
on the outside of the sepulchre told the two Marys that Christ was
risen, and that the women went away quickly. Mark says, that the
women, upon seeing the stone rolled away, and wondering at it, went
into the sepulchre, and that it was the angel that was sitting
within on the right side, that told them so. Luke says, it was the
two angels that were Standing up; and John says, it was Jesus
Christ himself that told it to Mary Magdalene; and that she did not
go into the sepulchre, but only stooped down and looked in.
Now, if the writers of these four books had gone into a court
of justice to prove an alibi, (for it is of the nature of an alibi
that is here attempted to be proved, namely, the absence of a dead
body by supernatural means,) and had they given their evidence in
the same contradictory manner as it is here given, they would have
been in danger of having their ears cropt for perjury, and would
have justly deserved it. Yet this is the evidence, and these are
the books, that have been imposed upon the world as being given by
divine inspiration, and as the unchangeable word of God.
The writer of the book of Matthew, after giving this account,
relates a story that is not to be found in any of the other books,
and which is the same I have just before alluded to. "Now," says
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
94
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
he, [that is, after the conversation the women had had with the
angel sitting upon the stone,] "behold some of the watch [meaning
the watch that he had said had been placed over the sepulchre] came
into the city, and shawed unto the chief priests all the things
that were done; and when they were assembled with the elders and
had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying,
Say ye, that his disciples came by night, and stole him away while
we slept; and if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade
him, and secure you. So they took the money, and did as they were
taught; and this saying [that his disciples stole him away] is
commonly reported among the Jews until this day."
The expression, until this day, is an evidence that the book
ascribed to Matthew was not written by Matthew, and that it has
been manufactured long after the times and things of which it
pretends to treat; for the expression implies a great length of
intervening time. It would be inconsistent in us to speak in this
manner of any thing happening in our own time. To give, therefore,
intelligible meaning to the expression, we must suppose a lapse of
some generations at least, for this manner of speaking carries the
mind back to ancient time.
The absurdity also of the story is worth noticing; for it
shows the writer of the book of Matthew to have been an exceeding
weak and foolish man. He tells a story that contradicts itself in
point of possibility; for though the guard, if there were any,
might be made to say that the body was taken away while they were
asleep, and to give that as a reason for their not having prevented
it, that same sleep must also have prevented their knowing how, and
by whom, it was done; and yet they are made to say that it was the
disciples who did it. Were a man to tender his evidence of
something that he should say was done, and of the manner of doing
it, and of the person who did it, while he was asleep, and could
know nothing of the matter, such evidence could not be received: it
will do well enough for Testament evidence, but not for any thing
where truth is concerned.
I come now to that part of the evidence in those books, that
respects the pretended appearance of Christ after this pretended
resurrection.
The writer of the book of Matthew relates, that the angel that
was sitting on the stone at the mouth of the sepulchre, said to the
two Marys (xxviii. 7), "Behold Christ is gone before you into
Galilee, there ye shall see him; lo, I have told you." And the same
writer at the next two verses (8, 9,) makes Christ himself to speak
to the same purpose to these women immediately after the angel had
told it to them, and that they ran quickly to tell it to the
disciples; and it is said (ver. 16), "Then the eleven disciples
went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed
them; and, when they saw him, they worshipped him."
But the writer of the book of John tells us a story very
different to this; for he says (xx. 19) "Then the same day at
evening, being the first day of the week, [that is, the same day
that Christ is said to have risen,] when the doors were shut, where
the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and
stood in the midst of them."
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
95
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
According to Matthew the eleven were marching to Galilee, to
meet Jesus in a mountain, by his own appointment, at the very time
when, according to John, they were assembled in another place, and
that not by appointment, but in secret, for fear of the Jews.
The writer of the book of Luke xxiv. 13, 33-36, contradicts
that of Matthew more pointedly than John does; for he says
expressly, that the meeting was in Jerusalem the evening of the
same day that he (Christ) rose, and that the eleven were there.
Now, it is not possible, unless we admit these supposed
disciples the right of wilful lying, that the writers of these
books could be any of the eleven persons called disciples; for if,
according to Matthew, the eleven went into Galilee to meet Jesus in
a mountain by his own appointment, on the same day that he is said
to have risen, Luke and John must have been two of that eleven; yet
the writer of Luke says expressly, and John implies as much, that
the meeting was that same day, in a house in Jerusalem; and, on the
other hand, if, according to Luke and John, the eleven were
assembled in a house in Jerusalem, Matthew must have been one of
that eleven; yet Matthew says the meeting was in a mountain in
Galilee, and consequently the evidence given in those books destroy
each other.
The writer of the book of Mark says nothing about any meeting
in Galilee; but he says (xvi. 12) that Christ, after his
resurrection, appeared in another form to two of them, as they
walked into the country, and that these two told it to the residue,
who would not believe them. [This belongs to the late addition to
Mark, which originally ended with xvi. 8. -- Editor.] Luke also
tells a story, in which he keeps Christ employed the whole of the
day of this pretended resurrection, until the evening, and which
totally invalidates the account of going to the mountain in
Galilee. He says, that two of them, without saying which two, went
that same day to a village called Emmaus, three score furlongs
(seven miles and a half) from Jerusalem, and that Christ in
disguise went with them, and stayed with them unto the evening, and
supped with them, and then vanished out of their sight, and
reappeared that same evening, at the meeting of the eleven in
Jerusalem.
This is the contradictory manner in which the evidence of this
pretended reappearance of Christ is stated: the only point in which
the writers agree, is the skulking privacy of that reappearance;
for whether it was in the recess of a mountain in Galilee, or in a
shut-up house in Jerusalem, it was still skulking. To what cause
then are we to assign this skulking? On the one hand, it is
directly repugnant to the supposed or pretended end, that of
convincing the world that Christ was risen; and, on the other hand,
to have asserted the publicity of it would have exposed the writers
of those books to public detection; and, therefore, they have been
under the necessity of making it a private affair.
As to the account of Christ being seen by more than five
hundred at once, it is Paul only who says it, and not the five
hundred who say it for themselves. It is, therefore, the testimony
of but one man, and that too of a man, who did not, according to
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
96
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
the same account, believe a word of the matter himself at the time
it is said to have happened. His evidence, supposing him to have
been the writer of Corinthians xv., where this account is given, is
like that of a man who comes into a court of justice to swear that
what he had sworn before was false. A man may often see reason, and
he has too always the right of changing his opinion; but this
liberty does not extend to matters of fact.
I now come to the last scene, that of the ascension into
heaven. -- Here all fear of the Jews, and of every thing else, must
necessarily have been out of the question: it was that which, if
true, was to seal the whole; and upon which the reality of the
future mission of the disciples was to rest for proof. Words,
whether declarations or promises, that passed in private, either in
the recess of a mountain in Galilee, or in a shut-up house in
Jerusalem, even supposing them to have been spoken, could not be
evidence in public; it was therefore necessary that this last scene
should preclude the possibility of denial and dispute; and that it
should be, as I have stated in the former part of 'The Age of
Reason,' as public and as visible as the sun at noon-day; at least
it ought to have been as public as the crucifixion is reported to
have been. -- But to come to the point.
In the first place, the writer of the book of Matthew does not
say a syllable about it; neither does the writer of the book of
John. This being the case, is it possible to suppose that those
writers, who affect to be even minute in other matters, would have
been silent upon this, had it been true? The writer of the book of
Mark passes it off in a careless, slovenly manner, with a single
dash of the pen, as if he was tired of romancing, or ashamed of the
story. So also does the writer of Luke. And even between these two,
there is not an apparent agreement, as to the place where this
final parting is said to have been. [The last nine verses of Mark
being ungenuine, the story of the ascension rests exclusively on
the words in Luke xxiv. 51, "was carried up into heaven," -words
omitted by several ancient authorities. -- Editor.]
The book of Mark says that Christ appeared to the eleven as
they sat at meat, alluding to the meeting of the eleven at
Jerusalem: he then states the conversation that he says passed at
that meeting; and immediately after says (as a school-boy would
finish a dull story,) "So then, after the Lord had spoken unto
them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of
God." But the writer of Luke says, that the ascension was from
Bethany; that he (Christ) led them out as far as Bethany, and was
fiarted from them there, and was carried up into heaven. So also
was Mahomet: and, as to Moses, the apostle Jude says, ver. 9. That
'Michael and the devil disputed about his body.' While we believe
such fables as these, or either of them, we believe unworthily of
the Almighty.
I have now gone through the examination of the four books
ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; and when it is considered
that the whole space of time, from the crucifixion to what is
called the ascension, is but a few days, apparently not more than
three or four, and that all the circumstances are reported to have
happened nearly about the same spot, Jerusalem, it is, I believe,
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
97
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
impossible to find in any story upon record so many and such
glaring absurdities, contradictions, and falsehoods, as are in
those books. They are more numerous and striking than I had any
expectation of finding, when I began this examination, and far more
so than I had any idea of when I wrote the former part of 'The Age
of Reason.' I had then neither Bible nor Testament to refer to, nor
could I procure any. My own situation, even as to existence, was
becoming every day more precarious; and as I was willing to leave
something behind me upon the subject, I was obliged to be quick and
concise. The quotations I then made were from memory only, but they
are correct; and the opinions I have advanced in that work are the
effect of the most clear and long-established conviction, -- that
the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world; -- that
the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God,
and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation by
that strange means, are all fabulous inventions, dishonourable to
the wisdom and power of the Almighty; -- that the only true
religion is deism, by which I then meant and now mean the belief of
one God, and an imitation of his moral character, or the practice
of what are called moral virtues; -- and that it was upon this only
(so far as religion is concerned) that I rested all my hopes of
happiness hereafter. So say I now -- and so help me God.
But to retum to the subject. -- Though it is impossible, at
this distance of time, to ascertain as a fact who were the writers
of those four books (and this alone is sufficient to hold them in
doubt, and where we doubt we do not believe) it is not difficult to
ascertain negatively that they were not written by the persons to
whom they are ascribed. The contradictions in those books
demonstrate two things:
First, that the writers cannot have been eye-witnesses and
ear-witnesses of the matters they relate, or they would have
related them without those contradictions; and, consequently that
the books have not been written by the persons called apostles, who
are supposed to have been witnesses of this kind.
Secondly, that the writers, whoever they were, have not acted
in concerted imposition, but each writer separately and
individually for himself, and without the knowledge of the other.
The same evidence that applies to prove the one, applies
equally to prove both cases; that is, that the books were not
written by the men called apostles, and also that they are not a
concerted imposition. As to inspiration, it is altogether out of
the question; we may as well attempt to unite truth and falsehood,
as inspiration and contradiction.
If four men are eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses to a scene,
they will without any concert between them, agree as to time and
place, when and where that scene happened. Their individual
knowledge of the thing, each one knowing it for himself, renders
concert totally unnecessary; the one will not say it was in a
mountain in the country, and the other at a house in town; the one
will not say it was at sunrise, and the other that it was dark. For
in whatever place it was and whatever time it was, they know it
equally alike.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
98
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
And on the other hand, if four men concert a story, they will
make their separate relations of that story agree and corroborate
with each other to support the whole. That concert supplies the
want of fact in the one case, as the knowledge of the fact
supersedes, in the other case, the necessity of a concert. The same
contradictions, therefore, that prove there has been no concert,
prove also that the reporters had no knowledge of the fact, (or
rather of that which they relate as a fact,) and detect also the
falsehood of their reports. Those books, therefore, have neither
been written by the men called apostles, nor by imposters in
concert. -- How then have they been written?
I am not one of those who are fond of believing there is much
of that which is called wilful lying, or lying originally, except
in the case of men setting up to be prophets, as in the Old
Testament; for prophesying is lying professionally. In almost all
other cases it is not difficult to discover the progress by which
even simple supposition, with the aid of credulity, will in time
grow into a lie, and at last be told as a fact; and whenever we can
find a charitable reason for a thing of this kind, we ought not to
indulge a severe one.
The story of Jesus Christ appearing after he was dead is the
story of an apparition, such as timid imaginations can always
create in vision, and credulity believe. Stories of this kind had
been told of the assassination of Julius Caesar not many years
before, and they generally have their origin in violent deaths, or
in execution of innocent persons. In cases of this kind, compassion
lends its aid, and benevolently stretches the story. It goes on a
little and a little farther, till it becomes a most certain truth.
Once start a ghost, and credulity fills up the history of its life,
and assigns the cause of its appearance; one tells it one way,
another another way, till there are as many stories about the
ghost, and about the proprietor of the ghost, as there are about
Jesus Christ in these four books.
The story of the appearance of Jesus Christ is told with that
strange mixture of the natural and impossible, that distinguishes
legendary tale from fact. He is represented as suddenly coming in
and going out when the doors are shut, and of vanishing out of
sight, and appearing again, as one would conceive of an
unsubstantial vision; then again he is hungry, sits down to meat,
and eats his supper. But as those who tell stories of this kind
never provide for all the cases, so it is here: they have told us,
that when he arose he left his grave-clothes behind him; but they
have forgotten to provide other clothes for him to appear in
afterwards, or to tell us what be did with them when he ascended;
whether he stripped all off, or went up clothes and all. In the
case of Elijah, they have been careful enough to make. him throw
down his mantle; how it happened not to be burnt in the chariot of
fire, they also have not told us; but as imagination supplies all
deficiencies of this kind, we may suppose if we please that it was
made of salamander's wool.
Those who are not much acquainted with ecclesiastical history,
may suppose that the book called the New Testament has existed ever
since the time of Jesus Christ, as they suppose that the books
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
99
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
ascribed to Moses have existed ever since the time of Moses. But
the fact is historically otherwise; there was no such book as the
New Testament till more than three hundred years after the time
that Christ is said to have lived.
At what time the books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John, began to appear, is altogether a matter of uncertainty. There
is not the least shadow of evidence of who the persons were that
wrote them, nor at what time they were written; and they might as
well have been called by the names of any of the other supposed
apostles as by the names they are now called. The originals are not
in the possession of any Christian Church existing, any more than
the two tables of stone written on, they pretend, by the finger of
God, upon Mount Sinai, and given to Moses, are in the possession of
the Jews. And even if they were, there is no possibility of proving
the hand-writing in either case. At the time those four books were
written there was no printing, and consequently there could be no
publication otherwise than by written copies, which any man might
make or alter at pleasure, and call them originals. Can we suppose
it is consistent with the wisdom of the Almighty to commit himself
and his will to man upon such precarious means as these; or that it
is consistent we should pin our faith upon such uncertainties? We
cannot make nor alter, nor even imitate, so much as one blade of
grass that he has made, and yet we can make or alter words of God
as easily as words of man. [The former part of the 'Age of Reason'
has not been published two years, and there is already an
expression in it that is not mine. The expression is: The book of
Luke was carried by a majority of one voice only. It may be true,
but it is not I that have said it. Some person who might know of
that circumstance, has added it in a note at the bottom of the page
of some of the editions, printed either in England or in America;
and the printers, after that, have erected it into the body of the
work, and made me the author of it. If this has happened within
such a short space of time, notwithstanding the aid of printing,
which prevents the alteration of copies individually, what may not
have happened in a much greater length of time, when there was no
printing, and when any man who could write could make a written
copy and call it an original by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? --
Author.
The spurious addition to Paine's work alluded to in his
footnote drew on him a severe criticism from Dr. Priestley
("Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever," p. 75), yet it seems to
have been Priestley himself who, in his quotation, first
incorporated into Paine's text the footnote added by the editor of
the American edition (1794). The American added: "Vide Moshiem's
(sic) Ecc. History," which Priestley omits. In a modern American
edition I notice four verbal alterations introduced into the above
footnote. -- Editor.]
About three hundred and fifty years after the time that Christ
is said to have lived, several writings of the kind I am speaking
of were scattered in the hands of divers individuals; and as the
church had begun to form itself into an hierarchy, or church
government, with temporal powers, it set itself about collecting
them into a code, as we now see them, called 'The New Testament.'
They decided by vote, as I have before said in the former part of
the Age of Reason, which of those writings, out of the collection
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
100
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
they had made, should be the word of God, and which should not. The
Robbins of the Jews had decided, by vote, upon the books of the
Bible before.
As the object of the church, as is the case in all national
establishments of churches, was power and revenue, and terror the
means it used, it is consistent to suppose that the most miraculous
and wonderful of the writings they had collected stood the best
chance of being voted. And as to the authenticity of the books, the
vote stands in the place of it; for it can be traced no higher.
Disputes, however, ran high among the people then calling
themselves Christians, not only as to points of doctrine, but as to
the authenticity of the books. In the contest between the person
called St. Augustine, and Fauste, about the year 400, the latter
says, "The books called the Evangelists have been composed long
after the times of the apostles, by some obscure men, who, fearing
that the world would not give credit to their relation of matters
of which they could not be informed, have published them under the
names of the apostles; and which are so full of sottishness and
discordant relations, that there is neither agreement nor
connection between them."
And in another place, addressing himself to the advocates of
those books, as being the word of God, he says, "It is thus that
your predecessors have inserted in the scriptures of our Lord many
things which, though they carry his name, agree not with his
doctrine. This is not surprising, since that we have often proved
that these things have not been written by himself, nor by his
apostles, but that for the greatest part they are founded upon
tales, upon vague reports, and put together by I know not what half
Jews, with but little agreement between them; and which they have
nevertheless published under the name of the apostles of our Lord,
and have thus attributed to them their own errers and their lies.
[I have taken these two extracts from Boulanger's Life of Paul,
written in French; Boulanger has quoted them from the writings of
Augustine against Fauste, to which he refers. -- Author.
This Bishop Faustus is usualy styled "The Manichaeum,"
Augustine having entitled his book, Contra Fsustum Manichaeum Libri
xxxiii., in which nearly the whole of Faustus' very able work is
quoted. -- Editor.]
The reader will see by those extracts that the authenticity of
the books of the New Testament was denied, and the books treated as
tales, forgeries, and lies, at the time they were voted to be the
word of God. But the interest of the church, with the assistance of
the faggot, bore down the opposition, and at last suppressed all
investigation. Miracles followed upon miracles, if we will believe
them, and men were taught to say they believed whether they
believed or not. But (by way of throwing in a thought) the French
Revolution has excommunicated the church from the power of working
miracles; she has not been able, with the assistance of all her
saints, to work one miracle since the revolution began; and as she
never stood in greater need than now, we may, without the aid of
divination, conclude that all her former miracles are tricks and
lies. [Boulanger in his life of Paul, has collected from the
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
101
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
ecclesiastical histories, and the writings of the fathers as they
are called, several matters which show the opinions that prevailed
among the different sects of Christians, at the time the Testament,
as we now see it, was voted to be the word of God. The following
extracts are from the second chapter of that work:
The Marcionists (a Christian sect) asserted that the
evangelists were filled with falsities. The Manichaeans, who formed
a very numerous sect at the commencement of Christianity, rejected
as false all the New Testament, and showed other writings quite
different that they gave for authentic. The Cerinthians, like the
Marcionists, admitted not the Acts of the Apostles. The Encratites
and the Sevenians adopted neither the Acts, nor the Epistles of
Paul. Chrysostom, in a bomily which he made upon the Acts of the
Apostles, says that in his time, about the year 400, many people
knew nothing either of the author or of the book. St. Irene, who
lived before that time, reports that the Valentinians, like several
other sects of the Christians, accused the scriptures of being
filled with imperfections, errors, and contradictions. The
Ebionites, or Nazarenes, who were the first Christians, rejected
all the Epistles of Paul, and regarded him as an impostor. They
report, among other things, that he was originally a Pagan; that he
came to Jerusalem, where he lived some time; and that having a mind
to marry the daughter of the high priest, he had himself been
circumcised; but that not being able to obtain her, he quarrelled
with the Jews and wrote against circumcision, and against the
observation of the Sabbath, and against all the legal ordinances.
-- Author. [Much abridged from the Exam. Crit. de la Vie de St.
Paul, by N.A. Boulanger, 1770. -- Editor.]
When we consider the lapse of more than three hundred years
intervening between the time that Christ is said to have lived and
the time the New Testament was formed into a book, we must see,
even without the assistance of historical evidence, the exceeding
uncertainty there is of its authenticity. The authenticity of the
book of Homer, so far as regards the authorship, is much better
established than that of the New Testament, though Homer is a
thousand years the most ancient. It was only an exceeding good poet
that could have written the book of Homer, and, therefore, few men
only could have attempted it; and a man capable of doing it would
not have thrown away his own fame by giving it to another. In like
manner, there were but few that could have composed Euclid's
Elements, because none but an exceeding good geometrician could
have been the author of that work.
But with respect to the books of the New Testament,
particularly such parts as tell us of the resurrection and
ascension of Christ, any person who could tell a story of an
apparition, or of a man's walking, could have made such books; for
the story is most wretchedly told. The chance, therefore, of
forgery in the Testament is millions to one greater than in the
case of Homer or Euclid. Of the numerous priests or parsons of the
present day, bishops and all, every one of them can make a sermon,
or translate a scrap of Latin, especially if it has been translated
a thousand times before; but is there any amongst them that can
write poetry like Homer, or science like Euclid? The sum total of
a parson's learning, with very few exceptions, is a, b, ab, and
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
102
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
hic, haec, hoc; and their knowledge of science is, three times one
is three; and this is more than sufficient to have enabled them,
had they lived at the time, to have written all the books of the
New Testament.
As the opportunities of forgery were greater, so also was the
inducement. A man could gain no advantage by writing under the name
of Homer or Euclid; if he could write equal to them, it would be
better that he wrote under his own name; if inferior, he could not
succeed. Pride would prevent the former, and impossibility the
latter. But with respect to such books as compose the New
Testament, all the inducements were on the side of forgery. The
best imagined history that could have been made, at the distance of
two or three hundred years after the time, could not have passed
for an original under the name of the real writer; the only chance
of success lay in forgery; for the church wanted pretence for its
new doctrine, and truth and talents were out of the question.
But as it is not uncommon (as before observed) to relate
stories of persons walking after they are dead, and of ghosts and
apparitions of such as have fallen by some violent or extraordinary
means; and as the people of that day were in the habit of believing
such things, and of the appearance of angels, and also of devils,
and of their getting into people's insides, and skaking them like
a fit of an ague, and of their being cast out again as if by an
emetic -- (Mary Magdalene, the book of Mark tells us had brought
up, or been brought to bed of seven devils;) it was nothing
extraordinary that some story of this kind should get abroad of the
person called Jesus Christ, and become afterwards the foundation of
the four books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Each
writer told a tale as he heard it, or thereabouts, and gave to his
book the name of the saint or the apostle whom tradition had given
as the eye-witness. It is only upon this ground that the
contradictions in those books can be acounted for; and if this be
not the case, they are downright impositions, lies, and forgeries,
without even the apology of credulity.
That they have been written by a sort of half Jews, as the
foregoing quotations mention, is discernible enough. The frequent
references made to that chief assassin and impostor Moses, and to
the men called prophets, establishes this point; and, on the other
hand, the church has complimented the fraud, by admitting the Bible
and the Testament to reply to each other. Between the Christian-Jew
and the Christian-Gentile, the thing called a prophecy, and the
thing prophesied of, the type and the thing typified, the sign and
the thing signified, have been industriously rummaged up, and
fitted together like old locks and pick-lock keys. The story
foolishly enough told of Eve and the serpent, and naturally enough
as to the enmity between men and serpents (for the serpent always
bites about the heel, because it cannot reach higher, and the man
always knocks the serpent about the head, as the most effectual way
to prevent its biting;) ["It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt
bruise his heel." Gen. iii. 15. -- Author.] this foolish story, I
say, has been made into a prophecy, a type, and a promise to begin
with; and the lying imposition of Isaiah to Ahaz, 'That a virgin
shall conceive and bear a son,' as a sign that Ahaz should conquer,
when the event was that he was defeated (as already noticed in the
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
103
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
observations on the book of Isaiah), has been perverted, and made
to serve as a winder up.
Jonah and the whale are also made into a sign and type. Jonah
is Jesus, and the whale is the grave; for it is said, (and they
have made Christ to say it of himself, Matt. xii. 40), "For as
Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so
shall the Son of man be three days and three nighis in the heart of
the earth." But it happens, aukwardly enough, that Christ,
according to their own account, was but one day and two nights in
the grave; about 36 hours instead of 72; that is, the Friday night,
the Saturday, and the Saturday night; for they say he was up on the
Sunday morning by sunrise, or before. But as this fits quite as
well as the bite and the kick in Genesis, or the virgin and her son
in Isaiah, it will pass in the lump of orthodox things. -- Thus
much for the historical part of the Testament and its evidences.
Epistles of Paul -- The epistles ascribed to Paul, being
fourteen in number, almost fill up the remaining part of the
Testament. Whether those epistles were written by the person to
whom they are ascribed is a matter of no great importance, since
that the writer, whoever he was, attempts to prove his doctrine by
argument. He does not pretend to have been witness to any of the
scenes told of the resurrection and the ascension; and he declares
that he had not believed them.
The story of his being struck to the ground as he was
journeying to Damascus, has nothing in it miraculous or
extraordinary; he escaped with life, and that is more than many
others have done, who have been struck with lightning; and that he
should lose his sight for three days, and be unable to eat or drink
during that time, is nothing more than is common in such
conditions. His companions that were with him appear not to have
suffered in the same manner, for they were well enough to lead him
the remainder of the journey; neither did they pretend to have seen
any vision.
The character of the person called Paul, according to the
accounts given of him, has in it a great deal of violence and
fanaticism; he had persecuted with as much heat as he preached
afterwards; the stroke he had received had changed his thinking,
without altering his constitution; and either as a Jew or a
Christian he was the same zealot. Such men are never good moral
evidences of any doctrine they preach. They are always in extremes,
as well of action as of belief.
The doctrine he sets out to prove by argument, is the
resurrection of the same body: and he advances this as an evidence
of immortality. But so much will men differ in their manner of
thinking, and in the conclusions they draw from the same premises,
that this doctrine of the resurrection of the same body, so far
from being an evidence of immortality, appears to me to be an
evidence againt it; for if I have already died in this body, and am
raised again in the same body in which I have died, it is
presumptive evidence that I shall die again. That resurrection no
more secures me against the repetition of dying, than an ague-fit,
when past, secures me against another. To believe therefore in
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
104
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
immortality, I must have a more elevated idea than is contained in
the gloomy doctrine of the resurrection.
Besides, as a matter of choice, as well as of hope, I had
rather have a better body and a more convenient form than the
present. Every animal in the creation excels us in something. The
winged insects, without mentioning doves or eagles, can pass over
more space with greater ease in a few minutes than man can in an
hour. The glide of the smallest fish, in proportion to its bulk,
exceeds us in motion almost beyond comparison, and without
weariness. Even the sluggish snail can ascend from the bottom of a
dungeon, where man, by the want of that ability, would perish; and
a spider can launch itself from the top, as a playful amusement.
The personal powers of man are so limited, and his heavy frame so
little constructed to extensive enjoyment, that there is nothing to
induce us to wish the opinion of Paul to be true. It is too little
for the magnitude of the scene, too mean for the sublimity of the
subject.
But all other arguments apart, the consciousness of existence
is the only conceivable idea we can have of another life, and the
continuance of that consciousness is immortality. The consciousness
of existence, or the knowing that we exist, is not necessarily
confined to the same form, nor to the same matter, even in this
life.
We have not in all cases the same form, nor in any case the
same matter, that composed our bodies twenty or thirty years ago;
and yet we are conscious of being the same persons. Even legs and
arms, which make up almost half the human frame, are not necessary
to the consciousness of existence. These may be lost or taken away
and the full consciousness of existence remain; and were their
place supplied by wings, or other appendages, we cannot conceive
that it could alter our consciousness of existence. In short, we
know not how much, or rather how little, of our composition it is,
and how exquisitely fine that little is, that creates in us this
consciousness of existence; and all beyond that is like the pulp of
a peach, distinct and separate from the vegetative speck in the
kernel.
Who can say by what exceeding fine action of fine matter it is
that a thought is produced in what we call the mind? and yet that
thought when produced, as I now produce the thought I am writing,
is capable of becoming immortal, and is the only production of man
that has that capacity.
Statues of brass and marble will perish; and statues made in
imitation of them are not the same statues, nor the same
workmanship, any more than the copy of a picture is the same
picture. But print and reprint a thought a thousand times over, and
that with materials of any kind, carve it in wood, or engrave it on
stone, the thought is eternally and identically the same thought in
every case. It has a capacity of unimpaired existence, unaffected
by change of matter, and is essentially distinct, and of a nature
different from every thing else that we know of, or can conceive.
If then the thing produced has in itself a capacity of being
immortal, it is more than a token that the power that produced it,
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
105
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
which is the self-same thing as consciousness of existence, can be
immortal also; and that as independently of the matter it was first
connected with, as the thought is of the printing or writing it
first appeared in. The one idea is not more difficult to believe
than the other; and we can see that one is true.
That the consciousness of existence is not dependent on the
same form or the same matter, is demonstrated to our senses in the
works of the creation, as far as our senses are capable of
receiving that demonstration. A very numerous part of the animal
creation preaches to us, far better than Paul, the belief of a life
hereafter. Their little life resembles an earth and a heaven, a
present and a future state; and comprises, if it may be so
expressed, immortality in miniature.
The most beautiful parts of the creation to our eye are the
winged insects, and they are not so originally. They acquire that
form and that inimitable brilliancy by progressive changes. The
slow and creeping caterpillar worm of to day, passes in a few days
to a torpid figure, and a state resembling death; and in the next
change comes forth in all the miniature magnificence of life, a
splendid butterfly. No resemblance of the former creature remains;
every thing is changed; all his powers are new, and life is to him
another thing. We cannot conceive that the consciousness of
existence is not the same in this state of the animal as before;
why then must I believe that the resurrection of the same body is
necessary to continue to me the consciousness of existence
hereafter?
In the former part of 'The Agee o,f Reason.' I have called the
creation the true and only real word of God; and this instance, or
this text, in the book of creation, not only shows to us that this
thing may be so, but that it is so; and that the belief of a future
state is a rational belief, founded upon facts visible in the
creation: for it is not more difficult to believe that we shall
exist hereafter in a better state and form than at present, than
that a worm should become a butterfly, and quit the dunghill for
the atmosphere, if we did not know it as a fact.
As to the doubtful jargon ascribed to Paul in 1 Corinthians
xv., which makes part of the burial service of some Christian
sectaries, it is as destitute of meaning as the tolling of a bell
at the funeral; it explains nothing to the understanding, it
illustrates nothing to the imagination, but leaves the reader to
find any meaning if he can. "All flesh," says he, "is not the same
flesh. There is one flesh of men, another of beasts, another of
fishes, and another of birds." And what then? nothing. A cook could
have said as much. "There are also," says he, "bodies celestial and
bodies terrestrial; the glory of the celestial is one and the glory
of the terrestrial is the other." And what then? nothing. And what
is the difference? nothing that he has told. "There is," says he,
"one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another
glory of the stars." And what then? nothing; except that he says
that one star differlth from another star in glory, instead of
distance; and he might as well have told us that the moon did not
shine so bright as the sun. All this is nothing better than the
jargon of a conjuror, who picks up phrases he does not understand
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
106
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
to confound the credulous people who come to have their fortune
told. Priests and conjurors are of the same trade.
Sometimes Paul affects to be a naturalist, and to prove his
system of resurrection from the principles of vegetation. "Thou
fool" says he, "that which thou sowest is not quickened except it
die." To which one might reply in his own language, and say, Thou
fool, Paul, that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die
not; for the grain that dies in the ground never does, nor can
vegetate. It is only the living grains that produce the next crop.
But the metaphor, in any point of view, is no simile. It is
succession, and [not] resurrection.
The progress of an animal from one state of being to another,
as from a worm to a butterfly, applies to the case; but this of a
grain does not, and shows Paul to have been what he says of others,
a fool.
Whether the fourteen epistles ascribed to Paul were written by
him or not, is a matter of indifference; they are either
argumentative or dogmatical; and as the argument is defective, and
the dogmatical part is merely presumptive, it signifies not who
wrote them. And the same may be said for the remaining parts of the
Testament. It is not upon the Epistles, but upon what is called the
Gospel, contained in the four books ascribed to Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John, and upon the pretended prophecies, that the theory
of the church, calling itself the Christian Church, is founded. The
Epistles are dependant upon those, and must follow their fate; for
if the story of Jesus Chiist be fabulous, all reasoning founded
upon it, as a supposed truth, must fall with it.
We know from history, that one of the principal leaders of
this church, Athanasius, lived at the time the New Testament was
formed; [Athanasius died, according to the Church chronology, in
the year 371 -- Auther.] and we know also, from the absurd jargon
he has left us under the name of a creed, the character of the men
who formed the New Testament; and we know also from the same
history that the authenticity of the books of which it is composed
was denied at the time. It was upon the vote of such as Athanasius
that the Testament was decreed to be the word of God; and nothing
can present to us a more strange idea than that of decreeing the
word of God by vote. Those who rest their faith upon such authority
put man in the place of God, and have no true foundation for future
happiness. Credulity, however, is not a crime, but it becomes
criminal by resisting conviction. It is strangling in the womb of
the conscience the efforts it makes to ascertain truth. We should
never force belief upon ourselves in any thing.
I here close the subject on the Old Testament and the New. The
evidence I have produced to prove them forgeries, is extracted from
the books themselves, and acts, like a two-edge sword, either way.
If the evidence be denied, the authenticity of the Scriptures is
denied with it, for it is Scripture evidence: and if the evidence
be admitted, the authenticity of the books is disproved. The
contradictory impossibilities, contained in the Old Testament and
the New, put them in the case of a man who swears for and against.
Either evidence convicts him of perjury, and equally destroys
reputation.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
107
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
Should the Bible and the Testament hereafter fall, it is not
that I have done it. I have done no more than extracted the
evidence from the confused mass of matters with which it is mixed,
and arranged that evidence in a point of light to be clearly seen
and easily comprehended; and, having done this, I leave the reader
to judge for himself, as I have judged for myself.
CHAPTER III.
CONCLUSION.
IN the former part of 'The Age of Reason' I have spoken of the
three frauds, mystery, miracle, and.Prophecy; and as I have seen
nothing in any of the answers to that work that in the least
affects what I have there said upon those subjects, I shall not
encumber this Second Part with additions that are not necessary.
I have spoken also in the same work upon what is celled
revelation, and have shown the absurd misapplication of that term
to the books of the Old Testament and the New; for certainly
revelation is out of the question in reciting any thing of which
man has been the actor or the witness. That which man has done or
seen, needs no revelation to tell him he has done it, or seen it --
for he knows it already -- nor to enable him to tell it or to write
it. It is ignorance, or imposition, to apply the term revelation in
such cases; yet the Bible and Testament are classed under this
fraudulent description of being all revelation.
Revelation then, so far as the term has relation between God
and man, can only be applied to something which God reveals of his
will to man; but though the power of the Almighty to make such a
communication is necessarily admitted, because to that power all
things are possible, yet, the thing so revealed (if any thing ever
was revealed, and which, by the bye, it is impossible to prove) is
revelation to the person only to whom it is made. His account of it
to another is not revelation; and whoever puts faith in that
account, puts it in the man from whom the account comes; and that
man may have been deceived, or may have dreamed it; or he may be an
impostor and may lie. There is no possible criterion whereby to
judge of the truth of what he tells; for even the morality of it
would be no proof of revelation. In all such cases, the proper
answer should be, "When it is revealed to me, I will believe it to
be revelation; but it is not and cannot be incumbent upon me to
believe it to be revelation before; neither is it proper that I
should take the word of man as the word of God, and put man in the
place of God." This is the manner in which I have spoken of
revelation in the former part of The Age of Reason; and which,
whilst it reverentially admits revelation as a possible thing,
because, as before said, to the Almighty all things are possible,
it prevents the imposition of one man upon another, and precludes
the wicked use of pretended revelation.
But though, speaking for myself, I thus admit the possibility
of revelation, I totally disbelieve that the Almighty ever did
communicate any thing to man, by any mode of speech, in any
language, or by any kind of vision, or appearance, or by any means
which our senses are capable of receiving, otherwise than by the
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
108
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
universal display of himself in the works of the creation, and by
that repugnance we feel in ourselves to bad actions, and
disposition to good ones. [A fair parallel of the then unknown
aphorism of Kant: "Two things fill the soul with wonder and
reverence, increasing evermore as I meditate more closely upon
them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."
(Kritik derpraktischen Vernunfe, 1788). Kant's religious utterances
at the beginning of the French Revolution brought on him a royal
mandate of silence, because he had worked out from "the moral law
within" a principle of human equality precisely similar to that
which Paine had derived from his Quaker doctrine of the "inner
light" of every man. About the same time Paine's writings were
suppressed in England. Paine did not understand German, but Kant,
though always independent in the formation of his opinions, was
evidently well acquainted with the literature of the Revolution, in
America, England, and France. -- Editor.]
The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and
the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race have had
their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.
It has been the most dishonourable belief against the character of
the divinity, the most destructive to morality, and the peace and
happiness of man, that ever was propagated since man began to
exist. It is better, far better, that we admitted, if it were
possible, a thousand devils to roam at large, and to preach
publicly the doctrine of devils, if there were any such, than that
we permitted one such impostor and monster as Moses, Joshua,
Samuel, and the Bible prophets, to come with the pretended word of
God in his mouth, and have credit among us.
Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of
men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the
bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death and religious wars,
that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence
arose they, but from this impious thing called revealed religion,
and this monstrous belief that God has spoken to man? The lies of
the Bible have been the cause of the one, and the lies of the
Testament [of] the other.
Some Christians pretend that Christianity was not established
by the sword; but of what period of time do they speak? It was
impossible that twelve men could begin with the sword: they had not
the power; but no sooner were the professors of Christianity
sufficiently powerful to employ the sword than they did so, and the
stake and faggot too; and Mahomet could not do it sooner. By the
same spirit that Peter cut off the ear of the high priest's servant
(if the story be true) he would cut off his head, and the head of
his master, had he been able. Besides this, Christianity grounds
itself originally upon the [Hebrew] Bible, and the Bible was
established altogether by the sword, and that in the worst use of
it -- not to terrify, but to extirpate. The Jews made no converts:
they butchered all. The Bible is the sire of the [New] Testament,
and both are called the word of God. The Christians read both
books; the ministers preach from both books; and this thing called
Cliristianity is made up of both. It is then false to say that
Christianity was not established by the sword.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
109
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
The only sect that has not persecuted are the Quakers; and the
only reason that can be given for it is, that they are rather
Deists than Christians. They do not believe much about Jesus
Christ, and they call the scriptures a dead letter. [This is an
interesting and correct testimony as to the beliefs of the earlier
Quakers, one of whom was Paine's father. -- Editer.] Had they
called them by a worse name, they had been nearer the truth.
It is incumbent on every man who reverences the character of
the Creator, and who wishes to lessen the catalogue of artificial
miseries, and remove the cause that has sown persecutions thick
among mankind, to expel all ideas of a revealed religion as a
dangerous heresy, and an impious fraud. What is it that we have
learned from this pretended thing called revealed religion? Nothing
that is useful to man, and every thing that is disbonourable to his
Maker. What is it the Bible teaches us? -- repine, cruelty, and
murder. What is it the Testament teaches us? -- to believe that the
Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married;
and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.
As to the fragments of morality that are irregularly and
thinly scattered in those books, they make no part of this
pretended thing, revealed religion. They are the natural dictates
of conscience, and the bonds by which society is held together, and
without which it cannot exist; and are nearly the same in all
religions, and in all societies. The Testament teaches nothing new
upon this subject, and where it attempts to exceed, it becomes mean
and ridiculous. The doctrine of not retaliating injuries is much
better expressed in Proverbs, which is a collection as well from
the Gentilcs as the Jews, than it is in the Testament. It is there
said, (Xxv. 2 I) "If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat;
and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:" [According to what
is called Christ's sermon on the mount, in the book of Matthew,
where, among some other [and] good things, a great deal of this
feigned morality is introduced, it is there expressly said, that
the doctrine of forbearance, or of not retaliating injuries, was
not any part of the doctrine of the Jews; but as this doctrine is
found in "Proverbs," it must, according to that statement, have
been copied from the Gentiles, from whom Christ had leamed it.
Those men whom Jewish and Christian idolators have abusively called
heathen, had much better and clearer ideas of justice and morality
than are to be found in the Old Testament, so far as it is Jewish,
or in the New. The answer of Solon on the question, "Which is the
most perfect popular govemment," has never been exceeded by any man
since his time, as containing a maxim of political morality,
"That," says he, "where the least injury done to the meanest
individual, is considered as an insult on the whole constitution."
Solon lived about 500 years before Christ. -- Author.] but when it
is said, as in the Testament, "If a man smite thee on the right
chcek, turn to him the other also," it is assassinating the dignity
of forbearance, and sinking man into a spaniel.
Loving, of enemies is another dogma of feigned morality, and
has besides no meaning. It is incumbent on man, as a moralist, that
he does not revenge an injury; and it is equally as good in a
political sense, for there is no end to retaliation; each
retaliates on the other, and calls it justice: but to love in
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
110
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
proportion to the injury, if it could be done, would be to offer a
premium for a crime. Besides, the word enemies is too vague and
general to be used in a moral maxim, which ought always to be clear
and defined, like a proverb. If a man be the enemy of another from
mistake and prejudice, as in the case of religious opinions, and
sometimes in politics, that man is different to an enemy at heart
with a criminal intention; and it is incumbent upon us, and it
contributes also to our own tranquillity, that we put the best
construction upon a thing that it will bear. But even this
erroneous motive in him makes no motive for love on the other part;
and to say that we can love voluntarily, and without a motive, is
morally and physically impossible.
Morality is injured by prescribing to it duties that, in the
first place, are impossible to be performed, and if they could be
would be productive of evil; or, as before said, be premiums for
crime. The maxim of doing as we would be done unto does not include
this strange doctrine of loving enemies; for no man expects to be
loved himself for his crime or for his enmity.
Those who preach this doctrine of loving their enemies, are in
general the greatest persecutors, and they act consistently by so
doing; for the doctrine is hypocritical, and it is natural that
hypocrisy should act the reverse of what it preaches. For my own
part, I disown the doctrine, and consider it as a feigned or
fabulous morality; yet the man does not exist that can say I have
persecuted him, or any man, or any set of men, either in the
American Revolution, or in the French Revolution; or that I have,
in any case, returned evil for evil. But it is not incumbent on man
to reward a bad action with a good one, or to return good for evil;
and wherever it is done, it is a voluntary act, and not a duty. It
is also absurd to suppose that such doctrine can make any part of
a revealed religion. We imitate the moral character of the Creator
by forbearing with each other, for he forbears with all; but this
doctrine would imply that he loved man, not in proportion as he was
good, but as he was bad.
If we consider the nature of our condition here, we must see
there is no occasion for such a thing as revealed religion. What is
it we want to know? Does not the creation, the universe we behold,
preach to us the existence of an Almighty power, that governs and
regulates the whole? And is not the evidence that this creation
holds out to our senses infinitely stronger than any thing we can
read in a book, that any imposter might make and call the word of
God? As for morality, the knowledge of it exists in every man's
conscience.
Here we are. The existence of an Almighty power is
sufficiently demonstrated to us, though we cannot conceive, as it
is impossible we should, the nature and manner of its existence. We
cannot conceive how we came here ourselves, and yet we know for a
fact that we are here. We must know also, that the power that
called us into being, can if he please, and when he pleases, call
us to account for the manner in which we have lived here; and
therefore without seeking any other motive for the belief, it is
rational to believe that he will, for we know beforehand that he
can. The probability or even possibility of the thing is all that
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
111
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
we ought to know; for if we knew it as a fact, we should be the
mere slaves of terror; our belief would have no merit, and our best
actions no virtue.
Deism then teaches us, without the possibility of being
deceived, all that is necessary or proper to be known. The creation
is the Bible of the deist. He there reads, in the hand-writing of
the Creator himself, the certainty of his existence, and the
immutability of his power; and all other Bibles and Testaments are
to him forgeries. The probability that we may be called to account
hereafter, will, to reflecting minds, have the influence of belief;
for it is not our belief or disbelief that can make or unmake the
fact. As this is the state we are in, and which it is proper we
should be in, as free agents, it is the fool only, and not the
philosopher, nor even the prudent man, that will live as if there
were no God.
But the belief of a God is so weakened by being mixed with the
strange fable of the Christian creed, and with the wild adventures
related in the Bible, and the obscurity and obscene nonsense of the
Testament, that the mind of man is bewildered as in a fog. Viewing
all these things in a confused mass, he confounds fact with fable;
and as he cannot believe all, he feels a disposition to reject all.
But the belief of a God is a belief distinct from all other things,
and ought not to be confounded with any. The notion of a Trinity of
Gods has enfeebled the belief of one God. A multiplication of
beliefs acts as a division of belief; and in proportion as anything
is divided, it is weakened.
Religion, by such means, becomes a thing of form instead of
fact; of notion instead of principle: morality is banished to make
room for an imaginary thing called faith, and this faith has its
origin in a supposed debauchery; a man is preached instead of a
God; an execution is an object for gratitude; the preachers daub
themselves with the blood, like a troop of assassins, and pretend
to admire the brilliancy it gives them; they preach a humdrum
sermon on the merits of the execution; then praise Jesus Christ for
being executed, and condemn the Jews for doing it.
A man, by hearing all this nonsense lumped and preached
together, confounds the God of the Creation with the imagined God
of the Christians, and lives as if there were none.
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there
is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man,
more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than
this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too
impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it
renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics.
As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism; and as
a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respects
the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter.
The only religion that has not been invented, and that has in
it every evidence of divine originality, is pure and simple deism.
It must have been the first and will probably be the last that man
believes. But pure and simple deism does not answer the purpose of
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
112
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
despotic governments. They cannot lay hold of religion as an engine
but by mixing it with human inventions, and making their own
authority a part; neither does it answer the avarice of priests,
but by incorporating themselves and their functions with it, and
becoming, like the government, a party in the system. It is this
that forms the otherwise mysterious connection of church and state;
the church human, and the state tyrannic.
Were a man impressed as fully and strongly as he ought to be
with the belief of a God, his moral life would be regulated by the
forcc of belief; he would stand in awe of God, and of himself, and
would not do the thing that could not be concealed from either. To
give this belief the full opportunity of force, it is necessary
that it acts alone. This is deism.
But when, according to the Christian Trinitarian scheme, one
part of God is represented by a dying man, and another part, called
the Holy Ghost, by a flying pigeon, it is impossible that belief
can attach itself to such wild conceits. [The book called the book
of Matthew, says, (iii. 16,) that the Holy Ghost descended in the
shape of a dove. It might as well have said a goose; the creatures
are equally harmless, and the one is as much a nonsensical lie as
the other. Acts, ii. 2, 3, says, that it descended in a mighty
rushing wind, in the shape of cloven tongues: perbaps it was cloven
feet. Such absurd stuff is fit only for tales of witches and
wizards. -- Author.
It has been the scheme of the Christian church, and of all the
other invented systems of religion, to hold man in ignorance of the
Creator, as it is of government to hold him in ignorance of his
rights. The systems of the one are as false as those of the other,
and are calculated for mutual support. The study of theology as it
stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is
founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no
authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and admits
of no conclusion. Not any thing can be studied as a science without
our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded;
and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is
therefore the study of nothing.
Instead then of studying theology, as is now done, out of the
Bible and Testament, the meanings of which books are always
controverted, and the authenticity of which is disproved, it is
necessary that we refer to the Bible of the creation. The
principles we discover there are eternal, and of divine origin:
they are the foundation of all the science that exists in the
world, and must be the foundation of theology.
We can know God only through his works. We cannot have a
conception of any one attribute, but by following some principle
that leads to it. We have only a confused idea of his power, if we
have not the means of comprehending something of its immensity. We
can have no idea of his wisdom, but by knowing the order and manner
in which it acts. The principles of science lead to this knowledge;
for the Creator of man is the Creator of science, and it is through
that medium that man can see God, as it were, face to face.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
113
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
Could a man be placed in a situation, and endowed with power
of vision to behold at one view, and to contemplate deliberately,
the structure of the universe, to mark the movements of the several
planets, the cause of their varying appearances, the unerring order
in which they revolve, even to the remotest comet, their connection
and dependence on each other, and to know the system of laws
established by the Creator, that governs and regulates the whole;
he would then conceive, far beyond what any church theology can
teach him, the power, the wisdom, the vastness, the munificence of
the Creator. He would then see that all the knowledge man has of
science, and that all the mechanical arts by which he renders his
situation comfortable here, are derived from that source: his mind,
exalted by the scene, and convinced by the fact, would increase in
gratitude as it increased in knowledge: his religion or his worship
would become united with his improvement as a man: any employment
he followed that had connection with the principles of the
creation, -- as everything of agriculture, of science, and of the
mechanical arts, has, -- would teach him more of God, and of the
gratitude he owes to him, than any theological Christian sermon he
now hears. Great objects inspire great thoughts; great munificence
excites great gratitude; but the grovelling tales and doctrines of
the Bible and the Testament are fit only to excite contempt.
Though man cannot arrive, at least in this life, at the actual
scene I have described, he can demonstrate it, because he has
knowledge of the principles upon which the creation is constructed.
We know that the greatest works can be represented in inodel, and
that the universe can be represented by the same means. The same
principles by which we measure an inch or an acre of ground will
measure to millions in extent. A circle of an inch diameter has the
same geometrical properties as a circle that would circumscribe the
universe. The same properties of a triangle that will demonstrate
upon paper the course of a ship, will do it on the ocean; and, when
applied to what are called the heavenly bodies, will ascertain to
a minute the time of an eclipse, though those bodies are millions
of miles distant from us. This knowledge is of divine origin; and
it is from the Bible of the creation that man has learned it, and
not from the stupid Bible of the church, that teaches man nothing.
[The Bible-makers have undertaken to give us, in the first chapter
of Genesis, an account of the creation; and in doing this they have
demonstrated nothing but their ignorance. They make there to have
been three days and three nights, evenings and mornings, before
there was any sun; when it is the presence or absence of the sun
that is the cause of day and night -- and what is called his rising
and setting that of moming and evening. Besides, it is a puerile
and pitiful idea, to suppose the Almighty to say, "Let there be
light." It is the imperative manner of speaking that a conjuror
uses when he says to his cups and balls, Presto, be gone -- and
most probably has been taken from it, as Moses and his rod is a
conjuror and his wand. Longinus calls this expression the sublime;
and by the same rule the conjurer is sublime too; for the manner of
speaking is expressively and grammatically the same. When authors
and critics talk of the sublime, they see not how nearly it borders
on the ridiculous. The sublime of the critics, like some parts of
Edmund Burke's sublime and beautiful, is like a windmill just
visible in a fog, which imaginanation might distort into a flying
mountain, or an archangel, or a flock of wild geese. -- Author.]
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
114
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
All the knowledge man has of science and of machinery, by the
aid of which his existence is rendered comfortable upon earth, and
without which he would be scarcely distinguishable in appearance
and condition from a common animal, comes from the great machine
and structure of the universe. The constant and unwearied
observations of our ancestors upon the movements and revolutions of
the heavenly bodies, in what are supposed to have been the early
ages of the world, have brought this knowledge upon earth. It is
not Moses and the prophets, nor Jesus Christ, nor his apostles,
that have done it. The Almighty is the great mechanic of the
creation, the first philosopher, and original teacher of all
science. Let us then learn to reverence our master, and not forget
the labours of our ancestors.
Had we, at this day, no knowledge of machinery, and were it
possible that man could have a view, as I have before described, of
the structure and machinery of the universe, he would soon conceive
the idea of constructing some at least of the mechanical works we
now have; and the idea so conceived would progressively advance in
practice. Or could a model of the universe, such as is called an
orrery, be presented before him and put in motion, his mind would
arrive at the same idea. Such an object and such a subject would,
whilst it improved him in knowledge useful to himself as a man and
a member of society, as well as entertaining, afford far better
matter for impressing him with a knowledge of, and a belief in the
Creator, and of the reverence and gratitude that man owes to him,
than the stupid texts of the Bible and the Testament, from which,
be the talents of the preacher; what they may, only stupid sermons
can be preached. If man must preach, let him preach something that
is edifying, and from the texts that are known to be true.
The Bible of the creation is inexhaustible in texts. Every
part of science, whether connected with the geometry of the
universe, with the systems of animal and vegetable life, or with
the properties of inanimate matter, is a text as well for devotion
as for philosophy -- for gratitude, as for human improvement. It
will perhaps be said, that if such a revolution in the system of
religion takes place, every preacher ought to be a philosopher.
Most certainly, and every house of devotion a school of science.
It has been by wandering from the immutable laws of science,
and the light of reason, and setting up an invented thing called
"revealed religion," that so many wild and blasphemous conceits
have been formed of the Almighty. The Jews have made him the
assassin of the human species, to make room for the religion of the
Jews. The Christians have made him the murderer of himself, and the
founder of a new religion to supersede and expel the Jewish
religion. And to find pretence and admission for these things, they
must have supposed his power or his wisdom imperfect, or his will
changeable; and the changeableness of the will is the imperfection
of the judgement. The philosopher knows that the laws of the
Creator have never changed, with respect either to the principles
of science, or the properties of matter. Why then is it to be
supposed they have changed with respect to man?
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
115
THE AGE OF REASON -- PART II.
I here close the subject. I have shown in all the foregoing
parts of this work that the Bible and Testament are impositions and
forgeries; and I leave the evidence I have produced in proof of it
to be refuted, if any one can do it; and I leave the ideas that are
suggested in the conclusion of the work to rest on the mind of the
reader; certain as I am that when opinions are free, either in
matters of govemment or religion, truth will finally and powerfully
prevail.
END
**** ****
Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
**** ****
The Bank of Wisdom is a collection of the most thoughtful,
scholarly and factual books. These computer books are reprints of
suppressed books and will cover American and world history; the
Biographies and writings of famous persons, and especially of our
nations Founding Fathers. They will include philosophy and
religion. all these subjects, and more, will be made available to
the public in electronic form, easily copied and distributed, so
that America can again become what its Founders intended --
The Free Market-Place of Ideas.
The Bank of Wisdom is always looking for more of these old,
hidden, suppressed and forgotten books that contain needed facts
and information for today. If you have such books please contact
us, we need to give them back to America.
**** ****
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
116
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank