The Age of Reason
By Thomas Paine
(This is just a
small selection from the book).
As several of
my colleagues and others of my fellow-citizens of France have given me the
example of making their voluntary and individual profession of faith, I also
will make mine; and I do this with all that sincerity and frankness with which
the mind of man communicates with itself.
I believe in
one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
I believe in
the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing
justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
But, lest it
should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I
shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and
my reasons for not believing them.
I do not
believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by
the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any
church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no
other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and
monopolize power and profit.
I do not mean
by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same
right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness
of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in
believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he
does not believe.
impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental
lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted
the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he
does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other
crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to
qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any
thing more destructive to morality than this?
Soon after I
had published the pamphlet Common Sense, in America, I saw the exceeding
probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by
a revolution in the system of religion. The adulterous connection of church and
state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had
so effectually prohibited by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established
creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of
government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and
openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in
the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and priestcraft would be
detected; and man would return to the pure, unmixed and unadulterated belief of
one God, and no more.
church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission
from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the
Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their
Mahomet, as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.
Each of those
churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God.
The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face;
the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the
Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from
Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own
part, I disbelieve them all.
As it is
necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into
the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation,
when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to
No one will
deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he
pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been
revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is
revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second
to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all
those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every
other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.
It is a
contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to
us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily
limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of
something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he
may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe
it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only
his word for it that it was made to him.
When Moses told
the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from
the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no
other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority
for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal
evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as
any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself,
without having recourse to supernatural intervention.
I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven and brought to Mahomet by an
angel, the account comes too near the same kind of hearsay evidence and
second-hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and,
therefore, I have a right not to believe it.
When also I am
told that a woman called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with
child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband,
Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not;
such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for
it; but we have not even this — for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such
matter themselves; it is only reported by others that they said so — it is
hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief upon such evidence.
It is, however,
not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus
Christ being the son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still
some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the
people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that
lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their
gods. It was not a new thing, at that time, to believe a man to have been
celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of
familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited
with hundreds: the story, therefore, had nothing in it either new, wonderful,
or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the
people called Gentiles, or Mythologists, and it was those people only that
believed it. The Jews who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no
more, and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the
It is curious
to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian church sprung out of
the tail of the heathen mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the
first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The
trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former
plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand: the statue of Mary
succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus; the deification of heroes changed
into the canonization of saints; the Mythologists had gods for everything; the
Christian Mythologists had saints for everything; the church became as crowded
with one, as the Pantheon had been with the other, and Rome was the place of
both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient
Mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet
remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.
Nothing that is
here said can apply, even with the most distant disrespect, to the real
character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and an amiable man. The morality
that he preached and practised was of the most benevolent kind; and though
similar systems of morality had been preached by Confucius, and by some of the
Greek philosophers, many years before; by the Quakers since; and by many good
men in all ages, it has not been exceeded by any.
wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage, or any thing else; not a
line of what is called the New Testament is of his own writing. The history of
him is altogether the work of other people; and as to the account given of his
resurrection and ascension, it was the necessary counterpart to the story of
his birth. His historians having brought him into the world in a supernatural
manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first
part of the story must have fallen to the ground.
contrivance with which this latter part is told exceeds every thing that went
before it. The first part, that of the miraculous conception, was not a thing
that admitted of publicity; and therefore the tellers of this part of the story
had this advantage, that though they might not be credited, they could not be
detected. They could not be expected to prove it, because it was not one of
those things that admitted of proof, and it was impossible that the person of
whom it was told could prove it himself.
resurrection of a dead person from the grave, and his ascension through the
air, is a thing very different as to the evidence it admits of, to the
invisible conception of a child in the womb. The resurrection and ascension,
supposing them to have taken place, admitted of public and ocular
demonstration, like that of the ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon-day,
to all Jerusalem at least. A thing which everybody is required to believe,
requires that the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and
universal; and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only
evidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of it falls to
the ground, because that evidence never was given. Instead of this, a small
number of persons, not more than eight or nine, are introduced as proxies for the
whole world, to say they saw it, and all the rest of the world are called upon
to believe it. But it appears that Thomas did not believe the resurrection,
and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual
demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for
me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.
It is in vain
to attempt to palliate or disguise this matter. The story, so far as relates to
the supernatural part, has every mark of fraud and imposition stamped upon the
face of it. Who were the authors of it is as impossible for us now to know, as
it is for us to be assured that the books in which the account is related were
written by the persons whose names they bear; the best surviving evidence we
now have respecting that affair is the Jews. They are regularly descended from
the people who lived in the times this resurrection and ascension is said to
have happened, and they say, it is not true. It has long appeared to me a
strange inconsistency to cite the Jews as a proof of the truth of the story. It
is just the same as if a man were to say, I will prove the truth of what I have
told you by producing the people who say it is false.
That such a
person as Jesus Christ existed, and that he was crucified, which was the mode
of execution at that day, are historical relations strictly within the limits
of probability. He preached most excellent morality and the equality of man;
but he preached also against the corruptions and avarice of the Jewish priests,
and this brought upon him the hatred and vengeance of the whole order of
priesthood. The accusation which those priests brought against him was that of
sedition and conspiracy against the Roman government, to which the Jews were
then subject and tributary; and it is not improbable that the Roman government
might have some secret apprehensions of the effects of his doctrine, as well as
the Jewish priests; neither is it improbable that Jesus Christ had in
contemplation the delivery of the Jewish nation from the bondage of the Romans.
Between the two, however, this virtuous reformer and revolutionist lost his
It is upon this
plain narrative of facts, together with another case I am going to mention,
that the Christian Mythologists, calling themselves the Christian Church, have
erected their fable, which, for absurdity and extravagance, is not exceeded by
anything that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients.
The ancient Mythologists tell us that the race of Giants made war
against Jupiter, and that one of them threw a hundred rocks against him at one
throw; that Jupiter defeated him with thunder, and confined him afterward under
Mount Etna, and that every time the Giant turns himself Mount Etna belches
It is here easy
to see that the circumstance of the mountain, that of its being a volcano,
suggested the idea of the fable; and that the fable is made to fit and wind
itself up with that circumstance.
Mythologists tell us that their Satan made war against the Almighty, who
defeated him, and confined him afterward, not under a mountain, but in a pit.
It is here easy to see that the first fable suggested the idea of the second;
for the fable of Jupiter and the Giants was told many hundred years before that
Thus far the
ancient and the Christian Mythologists differ very little from each other. But
the latter have contrived to carry the matter much farther. They have contrived
to connect the fabulous part of the story of Jesus Christ with the fable
originating from Mount Etna; and in order to make all the parts of the story
tie together, they have taken to their aid the traditions of the Jews; for the
Christian mythology is made up partly from the ancient mythology and partly
from the Jewish traditions.
Mythologists, after having confined Satan in a pit, were obliged to let him out
again to bring on the sequel of the fable. He is then introduced into the
Garden of Eden, in the shape of a snake or a serpent, and in that shape he
enters into familiar conversation with Eve, who is no way surprised to hear a
snake talk; and the issue of this tete-a-tete is that he persuades her to eat
an apple, and the eating of that apple damns all mankind.
Satan this triumph over the whole creation, one would have supposed that the
Church Mythologists would have been kind enough to send him back again to the
pit; or, if they had not done this, that they would have put a mountain upon
him (for they say that their faith can remove a mountain), or have put him
under a mountain, as the former mythologists had done, to prevent his getting
again among the women and doing more mischief. But instead of this they leave
him at large, without even obliging him to give his parole- the secret of which
is, that they could not do without him; and after being at the trouble of
making him, they bribed him to stay. They promised him ALL the Jews, ALL the
Turks by anticipation, nine-tenths of the world beside, and Mahomet into the
bargain. After this, who can doubt the bountifulness of the Christian
made an insurrection and a battle in Heaven, in which none of the combatants
could be either killed or wounded — put Satan into the pit — let him out again
— giving him a triumph over the whole creation — damned all mankind by the
eating of an apple, these Christian Mythologists bring the two ends of their
fable together. They represent this virtuous and amiable man, Jesus Christ, to
be at once both God and Man, and also the Son of God, celestially begotten, on
purpose to be sacrificed, because they say that Eve in her longing had eaten an
everything that might excite laughter by its absurdity, or detestation by its
profaneness, and confining ourselves merely to an examination of the parts, it
is impossible to conceive a story more derogatory to the Almighty, more
inconsistent with his wisdom, more contradictory to his power, than this story
In order to
make for it a foundation to rise upon, the inventors were under the necessity
of giving to the being whom they call Satan, a power equally as great, if not
greater than they attribute to the Almighty. They have not only given him the
power of liberating himself from the pit, after what they call his fall, but
they have made that power increase afterward to infinity. Before this fall they
represent him only as an angel of limited existence, as they represent the
rest. After his fall, he becomes, by their account, omnipresent. He exists
everywhere, and at the same time. He occupies the whole immensity of space.
with this deification of Satan, they represent him as defeating, by stratagem,
in the shape of an animal of the creation, all the power and wisdom of the
Almighty. They represent him as having compelled the Almighty to the direct
necessity either of surrendering the whole of the creation to the government
and sovereignty of this Satan, or of capitulating for its redemption by coming
down upon earth, and exhibiting himself upon a cross in the shape of a man.
inventors of this story told it the contrary way, that is, had they represented
the Almighty as compelling Satan to exhibit himself on a cross, in the shape of
a snake, as a punishment for his new transgression, the story would have been
less absurd — less contradictory. But instead of this, they make the
transgressor triumph, and the Almighty fall.
That many good
men have believed this strange fable, and lived very good lives under that
belief (for credulity is not a crime), is what I have no doubt of. In the first
place, they were educated to believe it, and they would have believed anything
else in the same manner. There are also many who have been so enthusiastically
enraptured by what they conceived to be the infinite love of God to man, in
making a sacrifice of himself, that the vehemence of the idea has forbidden and
deterred them from examining into the absurdity and profaneness of the story.
The more unnatural anything is, the more it is capable of becoming the object
of dismal admiration.
But if objects
for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves
every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us
the instant we are born — a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing?
Is it we that light up the sun, that pour down the rain, and fill the earth
with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe
still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future,
nothing to us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than
tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that
nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator?
I know that
this bold investigation will alarm many, but it would be paying too great a
compliment to their credulity to forbear it on their account; the times and the
subject demand it to be done. The suspicion that the theory of what is called
the Christian Church is fabulous is becoming very extensive in all countries;
and it will be a consolation to men staggering under that suspicion, and
doubting what to believe and what to disbelieve, to see the object freely
investigated. I therefore pass on to an examination of the books called the Old
and New Testament.
books, beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelation (which, by the by, is
a book of riddles that requires a revelation to explain it), are, we are told,
the word of God. It is, therefore, proper for us to know who told us so, that
we may know what credit to give to the report. The answer to this question is,
that nobody can tell, except that we tell one another so. The case, however,
historically appears to be as follows:
When the Church
Mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they
could find, and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of
uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of
the Old and New Testament are in the same state in which those collectors say
they found them, or whether they added, altered, abridged, or dressed them up.
Be this as it
may, they decided by vote which of the books out of the collection they had
made should be the WORD OF GOD, and which should not. They rejected several;
they voted others to be doubtful, such as the books called the Apocrypha; and
those books which had a majority of votes, were voted to be the word of God.
Had they voted otherwise, all the people, since calling themselves Christians,
had believed otherwise — for the belief of the one comes from the vote of the
other. Who the people were that did all this, we know nothing of; they called
themselves by the general name of the Church, and this is all we know of the
As we have no
other external evidence or authority for believing these books to be the word
of God than what I have mentioned, which is no evidence or authority at all, I
come, in the next place, to examine the internal evidence contained in the
In the former
part of this Essay, I have spoken of revelation; I now proceed further with
that subject, for the purpose of applying it to the books in question.
Revelation is a
communication of something which the person to whom that thing is revealed did
not know before. For if I have done a thing, or seen it done, it needs no
revelation to tell me I have done it, or seen it, nor to enable me to tell it,
or to write it.
therefore, cannot be applied to anything done upon earth, of which man himself
is the actor or the witness; and consequently all the historical and anecdotal
parts of the Bible, which is almost the whole of it, is not within the meaning
and compass of the word revelation, and, therefore, is not the word of God.
When Samson ran
off with the gate-posts of Gaza, if he ever did so (and whether he did or not
is nothing to us), or when he visited his Delilah, or caught his foxes, or did
any thing else, what has revelation to do with these things? If they were
facts, he could tell them himself, or his secretary, if he kept one, could
write them, if they were worth either telling or writing; and if they were
fictions, revelation could not make them true; and whether true or not, we are
neither the better nor the wiser for knowing them. When we contemplate the
immensity of that Being who directs and governs the incomprehensible WHOLE, of
which the utmost ken of human sight can discover but a part, we ought to feel
shame at calling such paltry stories the word of God.
As to the
account of the Creation, with which the Book of Genesis opens, it has all the
appearance of being a tradition which the Israelites had among them before they
came into Egypt; and after their departure from that country they put it at the
head of their history, without telling (as it is most probable) that they did
not know how they came by it. The manner in which the account opens shows it to
be traditionary. It begins abruptly; it is nobody that speaks; it is nobody
that hears; it is addressed to nobody; it has neither first, second, nor third
person; it has every criterion of being a tradition; it has no voucher. Moses
does not take it upon himself by introducing it with the formality that he uses
on other occasions, such as that of saying, "The Lord spake unto Moses,
Why it has been
called the Mosaic account of the Creation, I am at a loss to conceive. Moses, I
believe, was too good a judge of such subjects to put his name to that account.
He had been educated among The Egyptians, who were a people as well skilled in
science, and particularly in astronomy, as any people of their day; and the
silence and caution that Moses observes in not authenticating the account, is a
good negative evidence that he neither told it nor believed it The case is,
that every nation of people has been world-makers, and the Israelites had as
much right to set up the trade of world-making as any of the rest; and as Moses
was not an Israelite, he might not choose to contradict the tradition. The
account, however, is harmless; and this is more than can be said of many other
parts of the Bible.
read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous
executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible
is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon,
than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt
and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest
everything that is cruel.