 This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Steve Brown. The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, Part First, Section 11. It is owing to this long interregnum of science and to no other cause that we have now to look through a vast chasm of many hundred years to the respectable characters we call the ancients. Had the progression of knowledge gone on proportionably with that stock that before existed, that chasm would have been filled up with characters rising superior in knowledge to each other. And those ancients we now so much admire would have appeared respectively in the background of the scene. But the Christian system laid all waste. And if we take our stand about the beginning of the 16th century, we look back through that long chasm to the times of the ancients as over a vast sandy desert in which not a shrub appears to intercept the vision to the fertile hills beyond. It is an inconsistency, scarcely possible to be credited, that anything should exist under the name of a religion that held it to be irreligious to study and contemplate the structure of the universe that God has made. But the fact is too well established to be denied. The event that served more than any other to break the first link in this long chain of despotic ignorance is that known by the name of the Reformation by Luther. From that time, though it does not appear to have made any part of the intention of Luther, or of those who are called reformers, the sciences began to revive and the morality their natural associate began to appear. This was the only public good the Reformation did. For with respect to religious good, it might as well not have taken place. The mythology still continued the same and a multiplicity of national popes grew out of the downfall of the Pope of Christendom. Having thus shown from the internal evidence of things the cause that produced the change in the state of learning and the motive for substituting the study of the dead languages in the place of the sciences, I proceed in addition to several observations already made in the former part of this work to compare or rather to confront the evidence that the structure of the universe affords with the Christian system of religion. But as I cannot begin this part better than by referring to the ideas that occurred to me at an earlier part of life and which I doubt not have occurred in some degree to almost every person at one time or other, I shall state what those ideas were and add thereto such other matter as shall arise out of the subject giving to the whole by way of preface a short introduction. My father being of the Quaker profession, it was my good fortune to have an exceedingly good moral education and a tolerable stock of useful learning. Though I went to the grammar school, footnote, the same school, Thetford in Norfolk, that the present counselor Menge went to and under the same master, end of footnote. I did not learn Latin, not only because I had no inclination to learn languages, but because of the objection the Quakers have against the books in which the languages taught. But this did not prevent me from being acquainted with the subject of all the Latin books used in the school. The natural bent of my mind was to science. I had some turn and I believed some talent for poetry, but this I rather repressed than encouraged as leading too much into the field of imagination. As soon as I was able, I purchased a pair of globes and attended the philosophical lectures of Martin and Ferguson and became afterward acquainted with Dr. Bevis of a society called the Royal Society, then living in the temple and an excellent astronomer. I had no disposition for what is called politics. It presented to my mind no other idea than as contained in the word jockey ship. When therefore I turned my thoughts toward matter of government, I had to form a system for myself that accorded with the moral and philosophic principles in which I had been educated. I saw, or at least I thought I saw, a vast scene opening itself to the world in the affairs of America. And it appeared to me that unless the Americans changed the plan they were pursuing with respect to the government of England and declared themselves independent, they would not only involve themselves in a multiplicity of new difficulties, but shut out the prospect that was then offering itself to mankind through their means. It was from these motives that I published the work known by the name of Common Sense, which was the first work I ever did publish. And so far as I can judge of myself, I believe I should never have been known in the world as an author on any subject whatever had it not been for the affairs of America. I wrote Common Sense the latter end of the year, 1775, and published it the 1st of January, 1776. Independence was declared the 4th of July following. Any person who has made observations on the state and progress of the human mind by observing his own cannot but have observed that there are two distinct classes of what are called thoughts. Those that we produce in ourselves by reflection and the act of thinking, and those that bolt into the mind of their own accord. I have always made it a rule to treat those voluntary visitors with civility, taking care to examine, as well as I was able, if they were worth entertaining. And it is from them I have acquired almost all the knowledge that I have. As to the learning that any person gains from school education, it serves only, like a small capital, to put him in a way of beginning learning for himself afterward. Every person of learning is finally his own teacher, the reason of which is that principles being a distinct quality to circumstances cannot be impressed upon the memory. Their place of mental residence is the understanding, and they are never so lasting as when they begin by conception. Thus much for the introductory part. From the time I was capable of conceiving an idea and acting upon it by reflection, I either doubted the truth of the Christian system or thought it to be a strange affair. I scarcely knew which it was, but I well remember, when about seven or eight years of age, hearing a sermon read by a relation of mine who was a great devotee of the church, upon the subject of what is called redemption by the death of the Son of God. After the sermon was ended, I went into the garden, and as I was going down the garden steps, for I perfectly recollect the spot, I revolted at the recollection of what I had heard, and thought to myself that it was making God Almighty act like a passionate man that killed his son when he could not revenge himself in any other way. And as I was sure a man behanged that did such a thing, I could not see for what purpose they preached such sermons. This was not one of that kind of thoughts that had anything in it of childish levity. It was to me a serious reflection arising from the idea I had that God was too good to do such an action, and also too almighty to be under any necessity of doing it. I believe in the same manner at this moment, and I moreover believe that any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child cannot be a true system. It seems as if the parents of the Christian profession were ashamed to tell their children anything about the principles of the religion. They sometimes instruct them in morals, and talk to them of the goodness of what they call Providence, for the Christian mythology has five deities. There is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, the God Providence, and the Goddess Nature. But the Christian story of God the Father, putting his son to death, or employing people to do it, for that is the plain language of the story, cannot be told by a parent to a child. And to tell him that it was done to make mankind heavier and better is making the story still worse. As if mankind could be improved by the example of murder, and to tell him that all this is a mystery is only making an excuse for the incredibility of it. How different is this to the pure and simple profession of deism? The true deist has but one deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientific, and mechanical. The religion that approaches the nearest of all others to true deism, in the moral and benign part thereof, is that professed by the Quakers, but they have contracted themselves too much by leaving the works of God out of their system. Though I reverence their philanthropy, I cannot help smiling at the conceit, that if the taste of a Quaker could have been consulted at the creation, what a silent and drab, colored creation it would have been. Not a flower would have blossomed in its gayities, nor a bird been permitted to sing. Quitting these reflections, I proceed to other matters, after I had made myself master of the use of the globes and of the ororary. Footnote. As this book may fall into the hands of persons who do not know what an ororary is, it is for their information I add this note. As the name gives no idea of the uses of thing, the ororary has its name from the person who invented it. It is a machinery of clockwork representing the universe in miniature, and in which the revolution of the earth round itself and round the sun, the revolution of the moon round the earth, the revolution of the planets round the sun. The relative distances from the sun as the center of the whole system, the relative distances from each other, and their different magnitudes are represented as they really exist in what we call the heavens. End of footnote. And conceived an idea of the infinity of space and the eternal divisibility of matter, and obtained at least a general knowledge of what is called natural philosophy, I began to compare, or as I have before said, to confront the eternal evidence those things afford with the Christian system of faith. End of part 11. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Steve Brown. The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. Part 1, section 12. Though it is not a direct article of the Christian system, that this world that we inhabit is the whole of the habitable creation, yet it is so worked up therewith, from what is called the mosaic account of the creation, the story of Eve and the apple, and the counterpart of that story, the death of the son of God, that to believe otherwise, that is, to believe that God created a plurality of worlds, at least as numerous as what we call stars, renders the Christian system of faith at once little and ridiculous, and scatters it in the mind like feathers in the air. The two beliefs cannot be held together in the same mind, and he who thinks that he believes both, has thought but little of either. Though the belief of a plurality of worlds was familiar to the ancients, it only within the last three centuries, that the extent and dimensions of this globe that we inhabit have been ascertained. Several vessels, following the tract of the ocean, have sailed entirely around the world, as a man may march in a circle, and come round by the contrary side of the circle to the spot he set out from. The circular dimensions of our world, in the widest part, as a man would measure the widest round of an apple or ball, is only 25,000 and 20 English miles, reckoning 69 miles and a half to an equatorial degree, and may be sailed round in the space of about three years. Footnote, allowing a ship to sail, on average, three miles in an hour, she would sail entirely round the world in less than one year, if she could sail in a direct circle, but she is obliged to follow the course of the ocean. End of footnote. A world of this extent may, at first thought, appear to us to be great, but if we compare it with the immensity of space in which it is suspended, like a bubble or a balloon in the air, it is infinitely less in proportion than the smallest grain of sand is to the size of the world, or the finest particle of dew to the whole ocean, and is therefore but small, and, as will be hereafter shown, is only one of a system of worlds in which the universal creation is composed. It is not difficult to gain some faint idea of the immensity of space in which this and all other worlds are suspended, if we follow a progression of ideas. When we think of the size or dimensions of a room, our ideas limit themselves to the walls, and there they stop. But when our eye or our imagination darts into space, that is, when it looks upward into what we call the open air, we cannot conceive any walls or boundaries it can have. And if for the sake of resting our ideas, we suppose a boundary, the question immediately renews itself and asks, what is beyond that boundary? And in the same manner, what is beyond the next boundary? And so on till the fatigued imagination returns and says, there is no end. Certainly, then, the Creator was not penned for room when He made this world no larger than it is, and we have to seek the reason in something else. If we take a survey of our own world, or rather of this, of which the Creator has given us the use as our portion in the immense system of creation, we find every part of it, the earth, the waters, and the air that surrounds it, filled and, as it were, crowded with life, down from the largest animals that we know of to the smallest insects the naked eye can behold, and from fence to others still smaller and totally invisible without the assistance of the microscope. Every tree, every plant, every leaf serves not only as a habitation, but as a world to some numerous race, till animal existence becomes so exceedingly refined that the effluvia of a blade of grass would be food for thousands. Since, then, no part of our earth is left unoccupied, why is it to be supposed that the immensity of space is a naked void lying in eternal waste? There is room for millions of worlds as large or larger than ours, and each of them millions of miles apart from each other. Having now arrived at this point, if we carry our ideas only one thought further, we shall see, perhaps, the true reason, at least a very good reason for our happiness, why the Creator, instead of making one immense world extending over an immense quantity of space, has preferred dividing that quantity of matter into several distinct and separate worlds, which we call planets, of which our earth is one. But before I explain my ideas upon this subject, it is necessary, not for the sake of those who already know, but for those who do not, to show what the system of the universe is. That part of the universe that is called the solar system, meaning the system of worlds to which our earth belongs, and of which soul, or in English language, the sun, is the center, consists, besides the sun of six distinct orbs or planets or worlds, besides the secondary called the satellites or moons of which our earth has one that attends her in her annual revolution around the sun, in like manner as the other satellites or moons attend the planets or worlds to which they severally belong, as may be seen by the assistance of the telescope. The sun is the center, round which those six worlds or planets revolve at different distances there from, and in circles concentrate to each other. Each world keeps constantly in nearly the same track around the sun, and continues at the same time, turning round itself in nearly an upright position as a top turns round itself when it is spinning on the ground and leans a little sideways. It is this leaning of the earth, 23.5 degrees, that occasions summer and winter, and the different length of days and nights. If the earth turned round itself in a position perpendicular to the plane, or level of the circle it moves in around the sun, as a top turns round when it stands erect on the ground, the days and nights would be always of the same length, 12 hours day and 12 hours night, and the seasons would be uniformly the same throughout the year. Every time that a planet, our earth for example, turns round itself, it makes what we call day and night, and every time it goes entirely round the sun, it makes what we call a year. Consequently, our world turns 365 times round itself, in going once round the sun. Footnote, those who supposed that the sun went round the earth every 24 hours, made the same mistake in idea that a cook would do in fact, that should make the fire go round the meat instead of the meat turning round itself toward the fire. End of footnote. The names that the ancients gave to those six worlds in which are still called by the same names are Mercury, Venus, this world that we call ours, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. They appear larger to the eye than the stars, being many million miles nearer to our earth than any of the stars are. The planet Venus is that which is called the evening star, and sometimes the morning star as she happens to set after or rise before the sun, in which either case is never more than three hours. The sun as before said, being the center, the planet or world nearest the sun is Mercury. His distance from the sun is 34 million miles, and he moves round in a circle, always at that distance from the sun, as a top may be supposed to spin round in the track in which a horse goes in a mill. The second world is Venus. She is 57 million miles distant from the sun, and consequently moves round in a circle much greater than that of Mercury. The third world is this that we inhabit, in which is 88 million miles distant from the sun, and consequently moves round in a circle greater than that of Venus. The fourth world is Mars. He is distant from the sun 134 million miles, and consequently moves round in a circle greater than that of our earth. The fifth is Jupiter. He is distant from the sun 557 million miles, and consequently moves round in a circle greater than that of Mars. The sixth world is Saturn. He is distant from the sun 763 million miles, and consequently moves round in a circle that surrounds the circles or orbits of all the other worlds or planets. The space, therefore, in the air, or in the immensity of space that our solar system takes up for the several worlds to perform their revolutions in round the sun, is of the extent in a straight line of the whole diameter of the orbit or circle in which Saturn moves round the sun, which being double his distance from the sun, is 1526 million miles, and its circular extent is nearly 5,000 million, and its globular contents is almost 3,500 million times 3,500 million square miles. Footnote. If it should be asked, how can man know these things? I have one plain answer to give, which is that man knows how to calculate an eclipse and also how to calculate to a minute of time when the planet Venus in making her revolutions round the sun will come in a straight line between our Earth and the sun and will appear to us about the size of a large P passing across the face of the sun. This happens but twice in about 100 years at the distance of about eight years from each other and has happened twice in our time, both of which were foreknown by calculation. It can also be known when they will happen again for a thousand years to come or to any other portion of time. As, therefore, man could not be able to do these things if he did not understand the solar system and the manner in which the revolutions of the several planets or worlds are performed, the fact of calculating an eclipse or a transit of Venus is a proof in point that the knowledge exists and as to a few thousand or even a few million miles, more or less, it makes scarcely any sensible difference in such immense distances. End of footnote. End of part 12. This is the LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Steve Brown. The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, par first, section 13. But this, immense as it is, is only one system of worlds. Beyond this at a vast distance into space, far beyond all power of calculation are the stars called the fixed stars. They are called fixed because they have no revolutionary motion as the six worlds or planets have that I have been describing. Those fixed stars continue always at the same distance from each other and always in the same place as the sun does in the center of our system. The probability, therefore, is that each of these fixed stars is also a sun, round which another system of worlds or planets, though too remote for us to discover, performs its revolutions as our system of worlds does around our central sun. By this easy progression of ideas, the immensity of space will appear to us to be filled with systems of worlds and that no part of space lies at waste any more than any part of the globe of Earth and water is left unoccupied. Having thus endeavored to convey in a familiar and easy manner some idea of the structure of the universe, I return to explain what I before alluded to, namely, the great benefits arising to man in consequence of the Creator having made a plurality of worlds, such as our system is, consisting of a central sun and six worlds, besides satellites, in preference to that of creating one world only of a vast extent. It is an idea I have never lost sight of that all our knowledge of science is derived from revolutions exhibited to our eye and from fence to our understanding, which those several planets or worlds of which our system is composed make in their circuit round the sun. Had then the quantity of matter which these six worlds contain been blended into one solitary globe, the consequence to us would have been that either no revolutionary motion would have existed or not a sufficiency of it to give to us the idea and the knowledge of science we now have. And it is from the sciences that all the mechanical arts that contribute so much to our earthly felicity and comfort are derived. As, therefore, the Creator made nothing in vain, so also must it be believed that He organized the structure of the universe in the most advantageous manner for the benefit of man. And as we see and from experience feel the benefits we derive from the structure of the universe formed as it is, which benefits we should not have had the opportunity of enjoying if the structure, so far as relates to our system, had been a solitary globe. We can discover at least one reason why a plurality of worlds has been made and that reason calls forth the devotional gratitude of man as well as his admiration. But it is not to us the inhabitants of this globe only that the benefits of rising from a plurality of worlds are limited. The inhabitants of each of the worlds of which our system is composed enjoy the same opportunities of knowledge as we do. They behold the revolutionary motions of our Earth as we behold theirs. All the planets revolve inside of each other and, therefore, the same universal school of science presents itself to all. Neither does the knowledge stop here. The system of worlds next to us exhibits, in its revolutions, the same principles in school of science to the inhabitants of their system as our system does to us and in like manner throughout the immensity of space. Our ideas, not only of the almightiness of the Creator, but of his wisdom and his beneficence, become enlarged in proportion as we contemplate the extent and the structure of the universe. The solitary idea of a solitary world rolling or at rest in the immense ocean of space gives place to the cheerful idea of a society of worlds so happily contrived as to administer, even by their motion, instruction to man. We see our own Earth filled with abundance, but we forget to consider how much of that abundance owing to the scientific knowledge the vast machinery of the universe has unfolded. But in the midst of those reflections, what are we to think of the Christian system of faith that forms itself upon the idea of only one world and that of no greater extent, as is before shown, than 25,000 miles, an extent which a man walking at the rate of three miles an hour for 12 hours in the day, could he keep on in a circular direction, would walk entirely round in less than two years. Alas, what is this to the mighty ocean of space and the almighty power of the Creator? From whence, then, could arise the solitary and strange conceit that the Almighty, who had millions of worlds equally dependent on His protection, should quit the care of all the rest and come to die in our world, because they say, one man and one woman heading an apple. And, on the other hand, are we to suppose that every world in the boundless creation had an Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a redeemer? In this case, the person who is irreverently called the Son of God and sometimes God himself would have nothing else to do than to travel from world to world in an endless succession of deaths with scarcely a momentary interval of life. It has been by rejecting the evidence that the word or works of God in the creation afford to our senses and the action of our reason upon that evidence that so many wild and whimsical systems of faith and of religion have been fabricated and set up. There may be many systems of religion that, so far from being morally bad, are in many respects morally good. But there can be but one that is true, and that one necessarily must, as it ever will, be in all things consistent with the ever-existing word of God that we behold in His works. But such is the strange construction of the Christian system of faith that every evidence the heavens afford to man either directly contradicts it or renders it absurd. It is possible to believe, and I always feel pleasure in encouraging myself to believe it, that there have been men in the world who persuade themselves that what is called a pious fraud might, at least under particular circumstances, be productive of some good. But the fraud being once established could not afterward be explained. For it is with a pious fraud, as with a bad action, it begets a calamitous necessity of going on. The persons who first preached the Christian system of faith and in some measure, combined it with the morality preached by Jesus Christ, might persuade themselves that it was better than the heathen mythology that then prevailed. From the first preachers, the fraud went on to the second and to the third, till the idea of its being a pious fraud became lost in the belief of its being true. And that belief became, again, encouraged by the interest of those who made a livelihood by preaching it. But though such a belief might by such means be rendered almost generally among the laity, it is next to impossible to account for the continual persecution carried on by the church for several hundred years against the sciences and against the professors of science if the church had not some record or tradition that it was originally no other than a pious fraud or did not foresee that it could not be maintained against the evidence that the structure of the universe afforded. Having thus shown the reconcilable inconsistencies between the real Word of God existing in the universe and that which is called the Word of God as shown to us in a printed book that any man might make, I proceed to speak of the three principle means that have been employed in all ages and perhaps in all countries to impose upon mankind. Those three means are mystery, miracle, and prophecy. The two first are incompatible with true religion and the third ought always to be suspected. With respect to mystery, everything we behold is, in one sense, a mystery to us. Our existence is a mystery. The whole vegetable world is a mystery. We cannot account how it is that an acorn when put into the ground is made to develop itself and become an oak. We know not how it is that the seed we sow unfolds and multiplies itself and returns to us such an abundant interest for so small a capital. The fact, however, as distinct from the operating cause is not a mystery, because we see it, but we know also the means we are to use, which is no other than putting the seed into the ground. We know, therefore, as much as is necessary for us to know and that part of the operation that we do not know and which, if we did, we could not perform, but it takes upon itself and performs it for us. We are, therefore, better off than if we had been let into the secret and left to do it for ourselves. But though every created thing is, in this sense, a mystery, the word mystery cannot be applied to moral truth any more than obscurity can be applied to light. The God in whom we believe is a God of moral truth and not a God of mystery or obscurity. Mystery is the antagonist of truth. It is a fog of human invention that obscures truth and represents it in distortion. Truth never envelops itself in mystery and the mystery in which it is at any time enveloped is the work of its antagonist and never of itself. End of Part 13 The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine Part 1, Section 14 Religion, therefore, being the belief of a God and the practice of moral truth cannot have connection with mystery. The belief of a God, so far from having anything of mystery in it, is of all beliefs the most easy because it arises to us as is before observed out of necessity. And the practice of moral truth or, in other words, a practical imitation of the moral goodness of God is no other than our acting toward each other as he acts benignly toward all. We cannot serve God in the manner we serve those who cannot do without such service and, therefore, the only idea we can have of serving God is that of contributing to the happiness of the living creation that God has made. This cannot be done by retiring ourselves from the society of the world and spending a recluse life in a selfish devotion. The very nature and design of religion, if I may so express it, prove even to demonstration that it must be free from everything of mystery and unencumbered with everything that is mysterious. Religion, considered as a duty, is incumbent upon every living soul alike and, therefore, must be on a level with the understanding and comprehension of all. Man does not learn religion as he learns the secrets and mysteries of a trade. He learns the theory of religion by reflection. It arises out of the action of his own mind upon the things which he sees or upon what he may happen to hear or to read, and the practice joins itself there, too. When men, whether from policy or pious fraud, set up systems of religion incompatible with the word or works of God in their creation and not only above, but repugnant to human comprehension, they were under the necessity of inventing or adopting a word that should serve as a bar to all questions, inquiries, and speculation. The word mystery answered this purpose and, thus, it has happened that religion, which is in itself without mystery, has been corrupted into a fog of mysteries as mystery answered all general purposes, miracle followed as an occasional auxiliary. The former served to bewilder the mind, the latter to puzzle the senses. The one was the lingo, the other alleged domain. But before going further into this subject, it will be proper to inquire what is to be understood by a miracle. In the same sense that everything may be said to be a mystery, so also may it be said that everything is a miracle and that no one thing is a greater miracle than another. The elephant, though larger, is not a greater miracle than a mite, nor a mountain a greater miracle than an atom. To an almighty power, it is no more difficult to make the one than the other and no more difficult to make millions of worlds than to make one. Everything, therefore, is a miracle in one sense, whilst in the other sense there is no such thing as a miracle. It is a miracle when compared to our power and to our comprehension if not a miracle compared to the power that performs it. But as nothing in this description conveys the idea that is affixed to the word miracle, it is necessary to carry the inquiry further. Mankind have conceived to themselves certain laws by which what they call nature is supposed to act and that miracle is something contrary to the operation and effect of those laws. But unless we know the whole extent of those laws and of what are commonly called the powers of nature, we are not able to judge whether anything that may appear to us wonderful or miraculous be within or be beyond or be contrary to her natural power of acting. The ascension of a man several miles high in the air would have everything in it that constitutes the idea of a miracle. If it were not known that a species of air can be generated several times lighter than the common atmospheric air and yet possess elasticity enough to prevent the balloon in which that light air is enclosed from being compressed into as many times less bulk by the common air that surrounds it. In like manner, extracting flames or sparks of fire from the human body as visible as from a steel struck with a flint and causing iron or steel to move without any visible agent would also give the idea of a miracle if we were not acquainted with electricity and magnetism. So also would many other experiments in natural philosophy to those who are not acquainted with the subject. The restoring person to life who are to appearance dead as is practiced upon drowned persons would also be a miracle if it were not known that animation is capable of being suspended without being extinct. Besides these there are performances by sleight of hand and by persons acting in concert that have a miraculous appearance which when known are thought nothing of. And besides these there are mechanical and optical deceptions. There is now an exhibition in Paris of ghosts or specters which though it is not imposed upon the spectators as a fact has an astonishing appearance. As therefore we know not the extent to which either nature or art can go there is no positive criterion to determine what a miracle is and mankind in giving credit to appearances under the idea of those being miracles are subject to be continually imposed upon. Since then appearances are so capable of deceiving and things not real have a strong resemblance to things that are. Nothing can be more inconsistent than to suppose that the Almighty would make use of means such as are called miracles that would subject the person who performed them to the suspicion of being an imposter and the person who related them to be suspected of lying and the doctrine intended to be supported thereby to be suspected as a fabulous invention. Of all the modes of evidence that ever were invented to obtain belief to any system or opinion to which the name of religion has been given that of miracle however successful the imposition may have been is the most inconsistent. For in the first place whenever recourse is had to show for the purpose of procuring that belief for a miracle under any idea of the word is a show. It implies a lameness or weakness in the doctrine that is preached and in the second place it is degrading the Almighty into the character of a showman playing tricks to amuse and make the people stare and wonder. It is also the most equivocal sort of evidence that can be set up for the belief is not to depend upon the thing called a miracle but upon the credit of the reporter who says that he saw it and therefore the thing were it true would have no better chance of being believed than if it were a lie. Suppose I were to say that when I sat down to write this book a hand presented itself in the air took up the pen and wrote every word that is herein written would anybody believe me? Certainly they would not. Would they believe me a wit the more if the thing had been a fact? Certainly they would not. Since then a real miracle were to happen would be subject to the same fate as the falsehood. The inconsistency becomes the greater of supposing the Almighty would make use of means that would not answer the purpose for which they were intended even if they were real. If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature that she must go out of that course to accomplish it and we see an account given of such miracle by the person who said he saw it it raises a question in the mind very easily decided which is is it more probable that nature should go out of her course or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen in our time nature go out of her course but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time. It is therefore at least millions to one that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie. The story of the whale swallowing Jonah though a whale is large enough to do it borders greatly on the marvelous but it would have approached nearer to the idea of a miracle if Jonah had swallowed the whale. In this which may serve for all cases of miracles the matter would decide itself as before stated namely is it more than a man should have swallowed a whale or told a lie? But suppose that Jonah had really swallowed the whale and gone with it in his belly to Nini and to convince the people that it was true had cast it up in their sight of the full length and size of a whale. Would they not have believed him to be the devil instead of a prophet? Or if the whale had carried Jonah to Nini and cast him up in the same public manner would they not have believed the whale to have been the devil and Jonah one of his imps? The most extraordinary of all things called miracles related in the New Testament is that of the devil flying away with Jesus Christ and showing him to the top of a high mountain and to the top of the highest pinnacle of the temple and showing him and promising to him all the kingdoms of the world. How happened it that he did not discover America or is it only with kingdoms that his Suri highness has any interest? I have too much respect for the moral character of Christ to believe that he told this whale of a miracle himself. Neither is it easy to account for what purpose it could have been fabricated unless it were to impose upon the connoisseurs of Queen Anne's farthings and collectors of relics and antiquities or to render the belief of miracles ridiculous by outdoing miracles as Don Quixote outdid chivalry or to embarrass the belief of miracles by making it doubtful by what power whether of God or of the devil anything called a miracle was performed. It requires however a great deal of faith in the devil to believe this miracle. End of part 14. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Recording by Steve Brown The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine Part 1, Section 15 In every point of view in which those things called miracles can be placed and considered the reality of them is improbable and their existence unnecessary. They would not as before observed answer any useful purpose even if they were true. For it is more difficult to obtain belief to a miracle than to a principle evidently moral without any miracle. Moral principle speaks universally for itself. Miracle could be but a thing of the moment unseen but by a few. After this it requires a transfer of faith from God to man to believe a miracle upon man's report. Instead therefore of admitting the recitals of miracles as evidence of any system of religion being true they ought to be considered as symptoms of its being fabulous. It is necessary to the full and upright character of truth that it rejects the crutch and it is consistent with the character of fable to seek the aid that truth rejects. Thus much for mystery and miracle. As mystery and miracle took charge of the past and the present, prophecy took charge of the future and rounded the tenses of faith. It was not sufficient to know what had been done but what would be done. The supposed prophet was the supposed historian of times to come and if he happened in shooting with a long bow of a thousand years to strike within a thousand miles of a mark the ingenuity of a posterity could make it point blank. And if he happened to be directly wrong it was only to suppose as in the case of Jonah and Nineveh that God had repented himself and changed his mind. What a fool do fabulous systems make of man. It has been shown in a former part of this work that the original meaning of the words prophet and prophesying has been changed and that a prophet in the sense of the word as now used is a creature of modern invention and it is owing to this change in the meaning of the words that the flights and metaphors of the Jewish poets and phrases and expressions now rendered obscure by our not being acquainted with the local circumstances to which they applied at the time they were used have been erected into prophecies and made to bend to explanations at the will and whimsical conceits of sectaries, expounders and commentators. Everything unintelligible was prophetical and everything insignificant was typical. A blunder would have served for a prophecy and a dash clout for a type. If by a prophet we are to suppose a man to whom the Almighty communicated some event that would take place in future either there were such men or there were not. If there were, it is consistent to believe that the event so communicated would be told in terms that could be understood and not related in such a loose and obscure manner as to be out of the comprehension of those that heard it and so equivocal as to fit almost any circumstance that may happen afterward. It is conceiving very irreverently of the Almighty to suppose that he would deal in this gesting manner with mankind yet all the things called prophecies in the book called the Bible come under this description but it is with prophecy as it is with miracle. It could not answer the purpose even if it were real. Those to whom a prophecy should be told could not tell whether the man prophesied or lied or whether it had been revealed to him or whether he conceded it and if the thing that he prophesied or intended to prophecy should happen or something like it among the multitude of things that are daily happening nobody could again know whether he foreknew it or guessed at it or whether it was accidental. A prophet, therefore, is a character useless and unnecessary and the safe side of the case is to guard against being imposed upon by not giving credit to such relations. Upon the whole mystery, miracle, and prophecy are appendages that belong to fabulous and not to true religion. They are the means by which many low-hears and low-theirs have been spread about the world and religion made into a trade. The success of one impostor gave encouragement to another and the quieting salvo of doing some good by keeping up a pious fraud protected them from remorse. Having now extended the subject to a greater length than I first intended, I shall bring it to a close by abstracting a summary from the whole. First, that the idea or belief of a word of God existing in print or in writing or in speech is inconsistent in itself for reasons already assigned. These reasons, among many others, are the want of a universal language, the mutability of language, the errors to which translations are subject, the possibility of totally suppressing such a word, the probability of altering it or of fabricating the whole and imposing it upon the world. Secondly, that the creation we behold is the real and ever-existing word of God in which we cannot be deceived. It proclaims his power. It demonstrates his wisdom. It manifests his goodness and beneficence. Thirdly, that the moral duty of man consists in imitating the moral goodness and beneficence of God manifested in the creation toward all his creatures. That seeing, as we daily do, the goodness of God to all men, it is an example calling upon all men to practice the same toward each other and, consequently, that everything of persecution and revenge between man and man and everything cruelty to animals is a violation of moral duty. I trouble not myself about the manner of future existence. I content myself with believing, even to positive conviction, that the power that gave me existence is able to continue it in any form and manner he pleases, either with or without this body. And it appears more probable to me that I shall continue to exist hereafter than that I should have had existence as I now have before that existence began. It is certain that, in one point, all the nations of the earth and all religions agree, all believe in a God. The things in which they disagree are the redundancies annexed to that belief. And therefore, if ever a universal language should prevail, it will not be by believing anything new, but in getting rid of redundancies and believing as man believed at first. Adam, if ever there were such a man, was created a deist. But in the meantime, would every man follow, as he has a right to do, the religion and the worship he prefers. End of the first part. Thus far, I had written on the 28th of December, 1793. In the evening, I went to the Hotel Philadelphia, formerly White's Hotel, Passage de Petit Pierre, where I lodged when I came to Paris, in consequence of being elected a member of the convention, but left the lodging about nine months and taken lodgings in the Rue-Fabuse-Saint-Denis for the sake of being more retired than I could be in the middle of the town. Meeting with a company of Americans at the Hotel Philadelphia, I agreed to spend the evening with them. And as my lodging was distant about a mile and a half, I bespoke a bed at the hotel. The company broke up about 12 o'clock, and I went directly to bed. About four in the morning, I was awakened by a wrapping at my chamber door. When I opened it, I saw a guard and the master of the hotel with them. The guard told me that they came to put me under arrestation and to demand the key of my papers. I desired them to walk in and I would dress myself and go with them immediately. It happened that Achille-Adubert of Calais was then in the hotel and I desired to be conducted into his room. When he came there, I told the guard that I had only lodged at the hotel for the night, that I was printing a work and that part of that work was at the Maison-Bretagne-Rouge-Cobre and desired they would take me there first, which they did. The printing office at which the work was printing was near the Maison-Bretagne, where Colonel Blackden and Joel Barlow of the United States of America lodged and I had desired Joel Barlow to compare the proof sheets with a copy as they came from the press. The remainder of the manuscript from page 32 to 76 was at my lodging. But besides the necessity of my collecting all the parts of the work together that the publication might not be interrupted by my imprisonment or by any event that might happen to me, it was highly proper that I should have a fellow citizen of America with me during the examination of my papers as I had letters of correspondence in my possession of the President of Congress, General Washington, the Minister of Foreign Affairs to Congress, Mr. Jefferson, and the late Benjamin Franklin, and it might be necessary for me to make a process verbal to send to Congress. It happened that Joel Barlow had received only one proof sheet of the work which he had compared with the copy and sent it back to the printing office. We then went in company with Joel Barlow to my lodging and the guard, or commissaires, took with them the interpreter of the Committee of Surety General. It was satisfactory to me that they went through the examination of my papers with the strictness they did. And it is but justice that I say they did it not only with civility but with tokens of respect to my character. I showed them the remainder of the manuscript of the foregoing work. The interpreter examined it and returned it to me saying, it is an interesting work. It will do much good. I also showed him another manuscript which I had intended for the Committee of Public Safety. It is entitled, Observations on the Commerce between the United States of America and France. After the examination of my papers was finished, the guard conducted me to the prison of the Luxembourg where they left me as they would a man whose undeserved fate they regretted. I offered to write under the process verbal they had made that they had executed their orders with civility but they declined it. End of section 15. End of part 1. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Steve Brown. The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. Preface to part 2. I have mentioned in the form 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 prepared men for the commission of all manner of crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecutions had transferred itself into politics. The tribunal-styled revolutionary applied the place of an inquisition and the guillotine and the stake outdid the fire and faggot of the church. 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 to refer to, though I was writing against both. Nor could I procure any, not withstanding 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. Toward the latter end of December of that year, a motion was made and carried to exclude foreigners from the convention. There were but two in it and a carcass clutes in myself and I saw I was particularly pointed at by Bordeaux de Lois 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 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 conveyed me to the prison of Luxembourg. I contrived on my way there to John 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 of the work. I addressed it to the protection of the citizens of the United States. It is with justice that I say that the guard who executed this order and the interpreter of the committee of General Surety and need them to examine my papers treated me not only with civility but with respect. The keeper of the Luxembourg Benoy, a man of good heart, showed to me every friendship in his power as did also all his family while he continued at that station. He was removed from it, put into arrestation and carried before the tribunal upon a malignant accusation that 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 countrymen and friend but were answered by the president that year who was also president of the Committee of Surety General and had signed the order from my arrestation that I was born in England. I heard no more after this 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 a conscientious trial of my own principles. I was then with three chamber comrades Joseph Van Hul of Bruges Charles Bistini and Michael Rubens of Louvain. The unceasing and anxious attention of these three friends to me by night and by day I remember with gratitude and mention with pleasure. It happened that a physician Dr. Graham and the surgeon Mr. Bond part of the suite of General O'Hara were then in 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 should reproach myself if I did not and also to the physician of the Luxembourg Dr. Markowski. I have some reason to believe because I cannot discover any other cause that this illness served to 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 handwriting of Robespierre in the following words. To demand that a decree of accusation be passed to demand that a decree of accusation be passed against Thomas Paine 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. I cannot inform myself and therefore I ascribe to the impossibility on account of that illness. The convention to repair as much as lay in their power the injustice I had sustained led me publicly and unanimously to return into the convention in which I had accepted to show 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 and some in other countries 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 of 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 aired in anything in the former part of the age of reason it has been by speaking better words than they have 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 anymore they will know how to begin. Thomas Paine October 1795 End of Preface to Part 2 This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Recording by Steve Brown The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine Part 2 Section 1 It has often been said that anything may be proved from the Bible. But before anything can be admitted as proved by the 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 anything. In 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 unathematized each other about the supposed meaning of particular parts and passages therein. One has said that it meant directly the contrary and the third that it meant neither one nor the other but something different from both and this they call understanding the Bible. It has happened that all the answers which I have seen to the former part of the Age of Reason have been written by priests and those pious men like their predecessors contend and wrangle and pretend to understand the Bible but each understands it best and they have agreed in nothing but in telling their readers that time is pain, 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 anything done by Robespierre by Carrier by Joseph Leban in France by the 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 history itself shows had given them no offense 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 these books and that too with exulting ferocity are we sure these things are facts? are we sure that the creator of man commissioned these things to be done? and are we sure that the books that tell us so were written by this authority? it is not the antiquity of a tale that is any evidence of its truth on the contrary it is a symptom of its being fabulous for the more ancient any history pretends to be the more it has the resemblance of a fable the origin of every nation is buried in fabulous tradition and that of the Jews is as much to be suspected as any other to charge the commission of acts 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 everything that is tender sympathizing and benevolent in the heart of man speaking for myself and 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 able to credit as being the word of God but before I proceed to this examination I will show wherein the Bible differs from all other ancient writings with respect to the nature of the evidence necessary to establish its authenticity and this is the more proper to be done because the advocates of the Bible in their answers to the former part of the age of reason take 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 Eglid's elements of geometry and the reason is because it is a book of self-evident demonstration entirely independent of its author and of everything related 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 or 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 we 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 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 is 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 DeMustines to Cicero etc here again the author is not essential in the credit we give to any of these works or 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 incredible and no farther for if we do we must believe the two miracles which Tacitus relates were performed by Vespasian securing a lame man and a blind man in just the same manner as the same things are told of Jesus Christ by his historians we must also believe the miracle cited by Josephus that of the sea of Pamphylia 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 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 and since we believe the things stated in these writings no further than they are probable and credible or because they are self-evident like Euclid see footnote or admire them because they are elegant like Homer or approve of them because they are sedate like Plato or judicious like Aristotle footnote Euclid according to the chronological history lived 300 years before Christ and about 100 before Archimedes he was of the city of Alexandria in Egypt end of footnote end of section 1 the age of reason by Thomas Paine part 2 section 2 having premised these things I proceed to examine the authenticity of the Bible and I begin with what are called the 5 books of Moses Genesis Exodus, Leviticus Numbers and Deuteronomy my intention is to show 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 afterward 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 there too 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 end of section 2 this is the LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org recording by Steve Brown The Age of Reason by Thomas Payne part 2 section 3 the evidence that I shall produce in this case is from the books themselves and I shall confine myself to this evidence only were I to refer for proof to any of the ancient authors whom the advocates of the Bible call profane authors they would contravert that authority as I contravert 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 evidence that Moses is the author of those books and that he is the author is an altogether unfounded opinion got abroad nobody knows how the style and manner in which those books were 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 and number for everything in Genesis is prior to the time of Moses and not the least illusion 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 persons 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 these books himself have nothing better to advance than supposition be silent but granting the grammatical right that Moses might speak of himself in the third person because any man might speak of himself in that manner it cannot be admitted as a fact in those books that it is Moses who speaks without rendering Moses truly ridiculous and absurd for example Numbers chapter 12 verse 3 now the man Moses was very meek above all the men which were above 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 of 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 form of books that Moses is not the writer the manner here used is dramatical the writer opens the subject by short introductory discourse and then introduces Moses in the act of speaking and when he has made Moses finish his harangue 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 in 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 harangue and this continues to the end of the 40th verse of the fourth chapter here the writer drops Moses and speaks historically of what was done in consequence of what Moses when living is supposed to have said and which the writer has dramatically rehearsed the writer opens the subject again in the first verse of the fifth chapter though it is only by saying that Moses called the people of Israel together and 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 33rd chapter the writer having now finished the rehearsal on the part of Moses forward and speaks through the whole of the last chapter he begins by telling the reader that Moses went 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 the whole man knoweth of his sepulcher 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 120 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 says this anonymous writer the Lord knew face to face having thus shown as far as grammatical evidence applies 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 show from the historical and chronological evidence contained in those books 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 vindicate the moral justice of God against the column knees of the Bible the writer of the book of Deuteronomy whoever he was for it is not an anonymous word is obscure and also in contradiction 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 it shows 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 about 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 know it where the sepulcher 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 the expression 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 know it where the sepulcher 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 in the land of Moses this writer has nowhere 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 the other of these is the more probable since he has given in the fifth chapter a table of commandments the fourth commandment is different from the fourth commandment in the 20th chapter of Exodus in that 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 therefore says this commandment the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day this makes no mention of the creation nor that of the coming out of Egypt there are also many things given as laws of Moses in this book that are not to be found in any of the other books among which is that inhuman and brutal law chapter 21 verses 18 19 20 and 21 which authorizes parents the father and the mother to bring their own children to have them stoned to death for what it is pleased to call stubbornness but priests have always been fond of preaching up Deuteronomy for Deuteronomy preaches up tithes and it is from this book chapter 25 verse 4 I have taken the phrase and applied it to tithing that thou shall not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn and that this might not escape observation that 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 oh priests priests ye are willing to be compared to an ox for the sake of tithes 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 priests who lived as I shall show in the course of this work at least 350 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 it not to go out of the Bible for evidence of anything 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 reader such a one at least as may not have the opportunity of knowing it that in the larger Bibles also in some smaller ones there is a series of chronology printed in the margin of every page for the purpose of showing how long the historical matters stated in each page happened or are supposed to have happened before Christ and consequently the distance of time between one historical circumstance and another end of section 3 is the LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine part 2 section 4 recording by Steve Brown I begin with the book of Genesis in the 14th chapter of Genesis the writer gives an account 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 he armed all his household and marched to rescue Lot from the captors and that he pursued them unto Dan verse 14 to show in what manner this expression 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 Avere Marat was before called Avere de Grasse New Amsterdam was changed to New York in the year 1664 Avere de Grasse was changed to Avere Marat in 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 but must have been written after New Amsterdam was changed to New York and consequently in 1764 or at least during the course of that year and in like manner any date list writing with the name of Avere Marat would be certain evidence that such a writing must have been written after Avere de Grasse became Avere Marat and consequently not till after the year 1793 or at least during the course of that year 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 into Dan is given. The place that is called Dan in the Bible was originally a town of the Gentiles called Laish and 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 the 18th chapter of the book called the Book of Judges it is there said verse 27 that the Israelites 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 the city verse 28 and dwelt therein and they called the name of the city Dan after the name of Dan one 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 1120 years before Christ and that of Moses 1451 before Christ 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 five last chapters as they stand in the book 1718 19 20 21 are put chronologically before all the preceding chapters to be 286 years before the 16th chapter 266 before the 15th 245 before the 13th 195 before the 9th 90 before the 4th and 15 years before the first chapter this shows 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 20 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 in 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 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 proceed now to state another point of historical evidence and to show there from as in the preceding case that Moses is not the author of the book of Genesis in the 36th chapter of Genesis 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 these are the kings that reigned in Edom before they reigned any king over the children of Israel now were any date list writings 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 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 that to refer to a fact in the room of a date it is most natural so to do first because a fact fixed itself in the memory better than a date secondly because the fact includes the date and serves to excite two ideas at once and this manner of speaking by circumstances implies as positively that the fact alluded to is past as if it were so expressed when a person 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 had 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 it only 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 it through all the time 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 gave a history of all the kings of Israel were professed as well as in fact written after the Jewish monarchy began and this verse that I have quoted in all the remaining verses of the 36th chapter of Genesis our word for word in the first chapter of chronicles beginning at the 43rd verse it was with consistency that the writer of the chronicles could say as he has said the chronicles chapter I verse 43 these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel because he was going to give and has given a list of the kings that had reigned in Israel but as it is impossible that the same expression could have been used before that period it is as certain as anything in 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 Esop's fables admitting Homer to have been as the tables of chronology state contemporary with David or Solomon and Esop 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 about the merit of being entertaining in the account of men living to eight and nine hundred years becomes as fabulous 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 pretense 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 chapter 31 verse 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 rough 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 council of Balaam to commit trespass against the Lord in the manner of Pior 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