I have some reason to believe, because I cannot discover any other,
that this illness preserved me in existence. Among the papers of
20.These excited Americans do not seem to have understood or reported the most important item in Vadier'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.
21.The officer who at Yorktown, Virginia, carried out the sword of Cornwallis for surrender, and satirically offered it to Rochambeau instead of Washington. Paine loaned him 300 pounds when he (O'Hara) left the prison, the money he had concealed in the lock of his cell-door.—Editor.
66
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:
"Démander que Thomas Paine soit décrété d'accusation, pour
l'intérêt de l'Amérique autant que de la France."
(Demand that Thomas Paine be decreed of accusation, for the in-
terest 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 im-
possibility, on account of that illness.
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.
67
October, 1795.
68
1
Chapter
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 in-
sisted that such a passage meant such a thing, another that it meant dir-
ectly the contrary, and a third, that it meant neither one nor the other, but
something
different
from
both;
and
this
they
have
called understanding the Bible.
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 com-
mand 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
69
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 commis-
sioned 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 charge the commission of things upon the Almighty, which in their
own nature, and by every rule of moral justice, are crimes, as all assassination is, and more especially the assassination of infants, is matter of serious concern. The Bible tells us, that those assassinations were done by
the express command of God. To believe therefore the Bible to be true, we must unbelieve all our belief in the moral justice of God; for wherein could crying or smiling infants offend? And to read the Bible without
horror, we must undo every thing that is tender, sympathising, and be-
nevolent 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 shew, from that evidence, that the Bible is not entitled 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 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 chal-
lenges universal consent and belief, and that is Euclid's Elements of Geometry; 22 and the reason is, because it is a book of self-evident 70
demonstration, entirely independent of its author, and of every thing re-
lating to time, place, and circumstance. The matters contained in that
book would have the same authority they now have, had they been writ-
ten 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 au-
thor 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 incred-
ible; 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 Demos-
thenes, 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 be-
lieves 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 im-
poster. As to the ancient historians, from Herodotus to Tacitus, we credit them as far as they relate things probable and credible, and no further:
for if we do, we must believe the two miracles which Tacitus relates were performed by Vespasian, that of curing a lame man, and a blind man, in
just the same manner as the same things are told of Jesus Christ by his
22.Euclid, according to chronological history, lived three hundred years before
Christ, and about one hundred before Archimedes; he was of the city of Alexandria,
71
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 authen-
ticated as the Bible miracles, and yet we do not believe them; con-
sequently 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 them-
selves; 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 72
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 ad-
vance than supposition, they may as well 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 man-
ner, 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 ar-
rogant 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 evid-
ently 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 Israel together; he then introduces Moses as before, and continues him as in the act of speaking, to the end of the 26th chapter. He does the same thing at the
beginning of the 27th chapter; and continues Moses as in the act of
speaking, to the end of the 28th chapter. At the 29th chapter the writer
73
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 be-
gins 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 un-to Moses, whom, says this anonymous writer, the Lord knew face to face.
Having thus shewn, as far as grammatical evidence implies, that
Moses was not the writer of those books, I will, after making a few observations on the inconsistencies of the writer of the book of Deuteronomy,
proceed to shew, from the historical and chronological evidence con-
tained 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 vin-
dicates 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 ap-
pear 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
74
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 command-
ment 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 sev-
enth; but in that of Deuteronomy, the reason given is, that it was the day on which the children of Israel came out of Egypt, and therefore, says this commandment, the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath-day. This makes no mention of the creation, nor that of the coming out of Egypt. There are also many things given as laws of Moses in this book,
that are not to be found in any of the other books; among which is that
inhuman and brutal law, xxi. 18, 19, 20, 21, which authorizes parents, the father and the mother, to bring their own children to have them stoned
to death for what it pleased them to call stubbornness.—-But priests have always been fond of preaching up Deuteronomy, for Deuteronomy
preaches up tythes; and it is from this book, xxv. 4, they have taken the phrase, and applied it to tything, that thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn: and that this might not escape observation, they have noted it in the table of contents at the head of the chapter, though it is only a single verse of less than two lines. O priests! priests! ye are willing to be compared to an ox, for the sake of tythes.23—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
23.An elegant pocket edition of Paine's Theological Works (London. R. Carlile, 1822)
has in its title a picture of Paine, as a Moses in evening dress, unfolding the two
tables of his "Age of Reason" to a farmer from whom the Bishop of Llandaff (who
replied to this work) has taken a sheaf and a lamb which he is carrying to a church at
the summit of a well stocked hill.—-Editor.
75
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 shaw-ing how long the historical matters stated in each page happened, or are
supposed to have happened, before Christ, and consequently the dis-
tance 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 writ-
ten 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.
I now come to the appli