A Review of the Age of Reason (Part 1)
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
Thomas Paine was one of this nation's "founding fathers." He was quite influential in encouraging this nation to fight for its independence from England. Toward that end he wrote the pamphlet, Common Sense, first published in January of 1776. Concerning that document, Wikipedia says:
In relation to the population of the Colonies at that time, it had the largest sale and circulation of any book in American history. Common Sense presented the American colonists with an argument for freedom from British rule at a time when the question of independence was still undecided. Paine wrote and reasoned in a style that common people understood; forgoing the philosophy and Latin references used by Enlightenment era writers. Paine structured Common Sense like a sermon and relied on Biblical references to make his case to the people…. Historian Gordon S. Wood described Common Sense as "the most incendiary and popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era."
Obviously, Paine was well-respected by the American public. Yet at the time of his death in 1809 he had lost their esteem. The reason for the change in heart toward him was that he had written the book, The Age of Reason, which was published in 1794. The book is anything but reasonable, as shall soon be seen. It is an all-out attack against the Bible, which readers must have found odd, considering the manner in which he wrote Common Sense.
He tried to pass off his vicious and unreasonable criticisms of the Bible as logical, but those who read the book could, of course, see through that claim as nothing but a mere ruse for him to express his personal hatred of the Bible. So irrational is his animosity that it cost him the good favor of the American people. Wikipedia reports the following concerning his death
At the time of his death, most American newspapers reprinted the obituary notice from the New York Citizen, which read in part: "He had lived long, did some good and much harm." Only six mourners came to his funeral…. The writer and orator Robert G. Ingersoll wrote:
Thomas Paine had passed the legendary limit of life. One by one most of his old friends and acquaintances had deserted him. Maligned on every side, execrated, shunned and abhorred—his virtues denounced as vices—his services forgotten—his character blackened, he preserved the poise and balance of his soul. He was a victim of the people, but his convictions remained unshaken. He was still a soldier in the army of freedom, and still tried to enlighten and civilize those who were impatiently waiting for his death. Even those who loved their enemies hated him, their friend—the friend of the whole world—with all their hearts. On the 8th of June, 1809, death came—Death, almost his only friend. At his funeral no pomp, no pageantry, no civic procession, no military display….
Ingersoll was one of the most famous atheists of his generation, and what he writes almost convinces the reader to feel sorry for Paine, but the fact is that Paine was not a victim of some propaganda campaign (as was launched against Edgar Allan Poe after his death). Paine brought this change of disposition upon himself. No one forced him to write or publish The Age of Reason, a book which some college professors still promote—and which may yet be turning away young people from the truth. Hence, there remains a need to review its contents. One learns quickly that Paine was nowhere near fair-minded in his criticisms.
Paine's Positive Point
Paine begins by saying that he had desired to publish his thoughts on religion for a long time although simultaneously he would have preferred to wait until a later time (5). Things pertaining to the French Revolution, however, caused him to come forth with the work at the time he did. He was living in France at the time of the Revolution and tells us later that he was arrested but released after the death of Robespierre (96). Most men, having come so close to death, might have re-examined their values and beliefs and drawn closer to God. Paine seemed to come out of the experience only more determined to assault the Bible. He had already written Part 1 of The Age of Reason, and he eagerly went to work on Part 2.
One might wonder what could possibly be positive about a book of this nature. While Paine mercilessly assaults the Scriptures, nevertheless, he is not an atheist, and this must be an embarrassment to those who still promote his book. He states at the outset: "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life" (6). He rightly believes there is evidence for the existence of God in the natural universe, an idea which needs to be developed further before returning to the errors he sets forth.
All mankind ought to have an "unmixed and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more," Paine affirms (7). [The page numbers cited are from the edition of this book published in 1942 by Willey Book Company in New York. In this book, the first numbered page is 5, and the last one is 256.] After an initial pooh-pooh-ing of the Bible as God's revelation, he then writes the following words that pertain to the natural world:
THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD; and it is this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man (38).
He then talks about the problems with old languages and translations, and afterward he affirms that no one can misunderstand the universal language which the Creation speaks (are you listening, modern atheists?). Unlike the problems associated with human language, the universe is not a copy but
an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God (40).
He was doing well until that last sentence, was he not? Every man living anywhere in this world can see and know that God is and that He made this Creation. Although Paine rejected the idea that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, Divine revelation says the same thing. God has shown us the evidence of His existence (Rom. 1:19). "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead" (Rom. 1:20). Paine just agreed with the written revelation which he opposes so greatly.
Nor is this the only passage that so teaches. Most Christians recall: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork" (Ps. 19:1). Five more verses elaborate on this theme until verse 7 turns to something equally powerful—God's written Revelation (Ps. 19:7-11). What does Paine mean by the natural Creation revealing all that we need to know about God? He answers:
Do we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the immensity of the Creation. Do we want to contemplate his wisdom? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible whole is governed. Do we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in the abundance with which he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy? We see it in his not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful. In fine, do we want to know what God is? Search not the book called the Scripture, which any human hand might make, but the Scripture called Creation (40-41).
It is interesting that he finds all of these attributes of God in nature. Would he have thought of all of them if he did not know something about the Bible? The disparaging remarks he makes about the Bible aside, Paine exhibits his best use of logic concerning the creation. He says rightly:
Every man is an evidence in himself that he did not make himself; neither could his father make himself…neither could any tree, plant, or animal make itself, and it is the conviction arising from this evidence that carries us on, as it were, by necessity to the belief of a first cause eternally existing, of a nature totally different to any material existence we know of, and by the power of which all things exist; and this first cause man calls God (43).
It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God (41-42).
He reasons correctly concerning the evidence for God's existence, but how many of today's evolutionists would agree with him? And how many atheists could refute the logic that he set forth? It is amazing how well Paine reasons concerning the existence of God but then loses that capability when he attacks the Scriptures. Anyone capable of reasoning properly on one subject ought to be able to be consistent and use it on other essential matters, yet Pain clearly does not do so. He harbors irrational hatred of the Scriptures, but he gives a clue as to the reason why.
Paine and the Priesthood
The author mentions in the second paragraph of his book that in France there had been "the total abolition of the whole national order of priesthood" (5). He glories in this fact and further in the abolishment of anything pertaining to compulsive systems of religion. Most people are aware of the history of the domination of the Catholic Church in France and other countries, but Paine seems to confuse Catholicism and the evil acts that the Catholic Church perpetrated on European society with true Christianity as taught in the Scriptures. That deep-seated hatred is also extended toward the Bible itself.
The charge is leveled that to follow any religion one must compromise his mind; he further insinuates that men become priests for covetous motives: "He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain…" (7). Without question, some men have, in the name of Christianity, made merchandise out of sincere believers (2 Peter 2:3) in an effort to enrich themselves. But had Paine never heard of the many men who lived in poverty and those who gave away their possessions in order to help their brethren (Acts 4)? His complaint is largely against the Catholic Church:
The invention of purgatory, and of the releasing of souls therefrom by prayers bought of the church with money; the selling of pardons, dispensations, and indulgences, are revenue laws.... The probability, therefore, is that the whole theory of what is called redemption…was originally fabricated on purpose to bring forth all those secondary and pecuniary redemptions upon… (35).
What a jaded view! Because the Catholic Church had invented a few money-making schemes (which have no Biblical authority), Paine concluded: 1) the church is a man-made idea; 2) the Scriptures themselves lack authority and are not from God; and 3) redemption itself must be a faulty concept, since religious "fund-raising" was based on it. This would be akin to saying that football is immoral because people bet on who will win the game. One might as well say (and some have) that marriage is evil because many people get divorced. Likewise, education must be evil because look how some people use it for evil.
Paine is also still angry with the Catholic Church over their treatment of Galileo and labeling his discoveries as "damnable heresy," as well as burning at the stake Vigilius for teaching that the earth is a globe (58). He is not yet finished, however; he adds that "it is next to impossible to account for the continual persecution carried on by the Church for several hundred years, against the sciences…" (78).
Okay, we all get it. Furthermore we agree that what was done was wrong—from the sale of indulgences to the treatment of Galileo. But neither the Bible nor the teaching of the New Testament caused either.
In the first place, the prophet talked about God sitting above the circle of the earth (Isa. 40:22). If the Catholic Church thought the earth was not round, they were just wrong. Both science and Scripture are in agreement on the shape of the earth. The Bible, properly interpreted, and true science never contradict each other, although today's science, with its mythology of evolution, is as far off as those in religion who interpreted the four corners of the earth literally instead of figuratively. Mr. Paine would have to chide today's evolutionists for not reasoning correctly about the Creation.
But Paine's problems with the Catholic Church, although legitimate, are not fair to genuine Christianity and the Bible for the following reasons. First, the New Testament did not establish the Catholic Church but rather the church of Christ (Matt. 16:19). The Catholic Church developed over a period of time when the true church departed from the doctrines taught in the Scriptures. Second, one of those departures was the idea of a separate priesthood. Although a part of the Old Testament, it is not found in the New. In fact, all Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9), and Jesus is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1).
Third, the Bible nowhere mentions purgatory. It is appointed unto man once to die; after that event, he will face the judgment on the day Jesus returns (Heb. 9:27-28). Fourth, the Bible says to reject heretics (Titus 3:10)—not burn them at the stake. Fifth, the Bible does talk about giving money to God frequently, but never once does it include buying the right to sin. Such a thought runs counter to the entire philosophy of the New Testament. Why does Paine persist in condemning true Christianity, along with the Bible itself, because of the sins of the Catholic Church?
Had he never heard of the Reformation, which began in the 1500s? Did he not realize that others besides himself were disenchanted with the way things were, having noticed that the Scriptures had been replaced by man-made traditions? Had he never heard of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli, Huss, and others who had been making efforts to get away from those abuses? How can a man reason so clearly from the evidence in the natural world that God is but then fail to realize how illogical it is to blame the Bible and genuine Christianity for the errors taught by a religious group? How would he have felt if Americans hated all Englishmen because King George III insisted on maintaining control of the colonies?
Paine seems to blame Catholicism alone in this book as the source for his unbelief. If there is some other reason for his thorough-going hatred of the Bible and written revelation, he gives no indication of what it is. If some personal incident in his life occurred, he neglects to mention it. He did equate Catholicism with paganism, saying that "the Christian church sprung out of the tail of heathen mythology," and adding that "the statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus," and the "deification of heroes changed into the canonization of the saints" (11). He has a valid point, but why blame the Bible and Christianity?