isao 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 B 3 MbM 3TT 
 
I 
 

 /U-A^ ^' ^^'^^^v^^" 
 
 11 E M ARKS, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 ENTITLED 
 
 "THE AGE OF REASON'' 
 
 ADDRESSED TO 
 
 THOMAS PAINE, 
 
 ITS AUTHOR. 
 
 By S. drew, 
 
 OF 5T. ^rsTiE, conyw.tLi^ 
 
 /i'f 
 
 ^- 
 
 -" It were to be\*i=he(l, that the eneir^ies of religion wcn!d !vt 
 least bring theroselves to apprehend its nature, before they opposed 
 it« autbority." Addisov. 
 
 " The good and evil of eternity, are too ponderons for the win^rs 
 of wit; the mind sinks under them in passive helplessness, content 
 "With calm belief and hiimble adoration." JoiiX5\>.\. 
 
 ^cconU litittion, 
 
 r.EVISED, AND CONSIDERABLY EKLJRGED. 
 
 "^ c 
 
 CORNWALL: L' t { / ' 
 Printed by andjor J. H. Drew, St. Auf,tle, 
 
 SOLD BY AV. BAYXES A^TD 90^, PATERXOSTER ROW, A\» 
 
 T. BLVASHARD, HATERXOSTER ROW AND 
 
 CITY ROAD, LONDON. 
 
 18'i(). 
 
 II 
 
-;,«i.«^«Ba, Mu, .«^g^«^ 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 
 When civilized nations adopt a pro- 
 fanenesSk of manners, under a pretence of 
 throwing oif mental restraints, it is but 
 natural for a thinking mind to inquire into 
 the occasion, on a larger scale than the 
 mere action presents. The deeds w hich we 
 perceive, confine our observations ; but a 
 retrospection on the past, and a calculation 
 on the future, will open sources of inform- 
 ation, on human conduct, which the visi- 
 bility of things cannot afford. Between the 
 past, the present, and the future, in every 
 thing of a moral nature, there is a close and 
 an intimate connexion ; for, as future events 
 are, in a great degree, produced by present 
 
iy PREFACE. 
 
 actions, so present actions are occasioned 
 by causes, which, from their relation to 
 their own results, may be known with a 
 tolerable degree of certainty. 
 
 When we behold the profaneness of man- 
 ners, and the contempt of things sacred, 
 M liich prevail ; and notice that practical 
 flisregard of every moral principle, which, 
 in many instances, is but too conspicuous ; 
 we cannot but inquire into the cause or 
 causes, which have conspired to produce 
 thecC effects, and into the consequences, of 
 which they seem to be the ominous pre- 
 sages. The former, no doubt, are variously 
 combined ; but, how diverse soever they 
 may be in their operations, they all unite 
 to establish mental anarchy, and to prepare 
 the mind for the reception of principles 
 correspondent with that practice which is 
 already established. 
 
 To this practice, the nature of which is 
 too conspicuous, great pains have lateh 
 
PREFACE, 
 
 been taken, to add the establishment of 
 infideUty in theory. To these attempts, 
 the dominion of vice gives bnt too many 
 facihties, of ^vhich those, Avhose aim is to 
 disseminate the fatal opiate, know bnt too 
 well how to avail themselves. How far 
 they have been snccessfnl, on this wicked 
 errand, I take not npon me to determine. 
 I can, nevertheless, easily satisfy myself^ 
 that, in proportion as infidelity takes root 
 in the mind, those principles, by which vice 
 is counteracted, will be eradicated, and 
 iniquity, founded upon sanctions of public 
 opinion, like a destructive torrent, will in- 
 undate the civil and the religious world. 
 
 I would not, however, insinuate from 
 hence, that everv Deist in theorv must be 
 immoral in practice ; because I frecjuently 
 observe the contrary: but I am satisfied, 
 that morality cannot arise from principles 
 of infidelity. It is possible for men to de- 
 rive a practice from principles which Deism 
 derides, and to attribute the effect to causes 
 
 A 2 
 
VI PREFACE, 
 
 which are incapable of producing it ; but, 
 in proportion as infideUty gains dominion 
 over the human mind, these restraints will 
 lose their influence on practice ; and, 
 as immoral actions can be supported by 
 custom, or rendered familiar by repetition, 
 sophistical reasoning will be suflScient to 
 preserve its abettors from conscientious 
 remorse. 
 
 As the interests of morality are made 
 the sole pretence for the propagation of 
 Deism, it is a question, which I would 
 seriously propose to all its advocates, — 
 IVhetker it should not he propagated on 
 those principles ivhich it affects to recom- 
 mend. That this is not the case is at- 
 tested bv fact. And hence it aifords room 
 for something more than mere suspicion, 
 that its primary design is to annihilate 
 Revelation, without giving to mankind a 
 substitute in its stead. Of this fact, the 
 *' Age of Reason'^ furnishes but too many 
 proofs ; and it is this circumstance that 
 
PREFACE. ?U 
 
 lias partially induced me to make some 
 Remarks on the first part of that book. 
 My aim, in the following pages, has been, 
 to point out such principles as I conceive 
 to be evidently false ; to detect some con- 
 clusions which are clearlv erroneous ; and 
 to animadvert on some sophisms, on which 
 much of its popularity is founded. How 
 far I have succeeded in my attempt, those 
 who read this little Volume must decide. 
 I am not conscious of having been actuated 
 by selfish or interested viey^ s ; and I leave 
 the rectitude of my intentions to that God, 
 from whose judgment there is no appeal. 
 
 Deism appears to me to have but little 
 to recommend it. It claims its existence on 
 the fancied inconsistencies which it disco- 
 vers in religious creeds, without having one 
 original virtue to entitle it to respect. It is 
 a system of neg^atives, if s} stem that may be 
 called, whose only boast is, that it discovers 
 errors in Revelation ; and hence it assumes 
 a title to credit, by instructing its votaries 
 
Viii PREFACE. 
 
 to disbelieve. Under the influence of this 
 pure negation of excellence, it promotes its 
 interests on the irritation of those passions 
 ivhich it should be the business of our 
 lives to subdue, and fortifies itself in the 
 strange commotions which it contributes 
 to raise. These are some of the errors 
 which I have designed to meet. But I am 
 not warranted in commentiu'^' on mv own 
 Observations. Such as they are, I commit 
 them to the world, and earnestly recom- 
 mend them to the candour and attention of 
 those to whom I now appeal. It is the first 
 time that I ever attempted to assume the 
 character of Author ; and, without dedica- 
 tion or patron, I abandon these Remarks 
 to their fate. 
 
 S. DREW. 
 
 September, 1799, 
 
INTRODUCTORY NARRATION, 
 
 ADDRESSED TO 
 
 THE READERS 
 
 THE SECOND EDITION^. 
 
 THE following Remarks, on the First Part of 
 Paine's " Age of Reason," were originally printed in 
 the year 1799; and the edition, which, in its cir- 
 culation, was chiefly confined to the County of 
 Cornwall, was speedily sold. The flattering manner 
 in whicJi the Pamphlet was received, and the 
 honourable notice which it obtained in the Anti- 
 jacobin Review, would have more than justified 
 another impression ; but, as the tide of public 
 opinion, in favour of the "Age of Reason," had 
 begun to ebb, and this being the first time that 
 the Author of the Remarks had presumed to 
 
X INTRODUCTORY NARRATION. 
 
 appear in print, he Avas content, that liis Remarks 
 should remain within those narrow conlines for 
 which they were primarily intended. The recent 
 attempts, however, which have been made, to dis- 
 seminate, among the looser classes of society, tlie 
 principles inculcated in the " Age of Reason ; " and 
 the daring front which infidelity has lately assumed 
 in the person of Mr. Carlile and others, in the 
 face of a British court of judicature, the Author 
 hopes, will furnish to every friend of civil society, 
 of Christian doctrines, and of Christian morals, a 
 sufficient apology for the reappearance of this little 
 Treatise, which originally started into existence 
 under the following circumstances. 
 
 A young gentleman, by profession a surgeon, had, 
 for a considerable time, been in habits of intimacy 
 with the Author; and their conversation frequently 
 turned on abstract theories, the nature of evidence, 
 under given circumstances, and the primary source 
 of moral principles. The yoimg gentleman had 
 made himself acquainted with the ^nitings of Vol- 
 taire, of Rousseau, of Gibbon, and of Hume, whose 
 
INTRODUCTORY >'ARRAT10N. ii 
 
 :-pec\ii4tions had led liim to look Avitli a suspicious 
 eye ou the Sacred Records, to v.hich he Avell knew 
 the Author \vas strongly attached. When Paine's 
 *' Age of Reason'' made its appearance, he prociu'ed 
 it; and fortifying himself with the objections against 
 Revelation, Avhich that book contained, he assumed 
 a bolder tone, and commenced an midisguised attack 
 on the Bible. 
 
 On finding the Author willing to hear his ob- 
 jections fairly stated, and more disposed to repel 
 them by fair argument, than opprobrious epithets 
 and Avild exclamations, he one day asked him, if he 
 had ever seen the "Age of Reason;"' and, on being 
 answered in the negative, he offered to lend it, 
 upon condition, that the Author would engage to 
 peruse it attentively, and give his opinion, with 
 candour, on the various parts which passed under 
 his inspection. These preliminaries being settled, 
 llie *' Age of Reason'"' was put into the Author's 
 hands, and he proceeded in its examination, Avith 
 all the ability of v, liicli he was possessed, and with 
 all the expedition that his avocations would allow. 
 
Xll INTRODUCTORY NARRATION. 
 
 During this period, scarcely a day elapsed, in 
 which they did not meet, and turn their attention 
 to the principles of the " Age of Reason," which 
 the Author controverted, and the yoimg gentleman 
 defended. In this controversy, no undue advantage 
 was taken, on either side. An inadvertent expression 
 each was at liberty to recall; and the gi'ound was 
 abandoned, when it was fairly for.nd to be no longer 
 tenable. The various argimients, to which these col- 
 loquial debates gave birth, were occasionally com- 
 mitted to writing, which, being collected together, 
 and augmented with additional observations, now 
 stand embodied in the little Treatise to which this 
 account is prefixed. 
 
 The vouns: i?entleman, fmdins; that the Author's 
 attachment to Revelation was not to be shaken, 
 recalled the " Age of Reason," under avowed sus- 
 picions, that the arguments it contained, Avere more 
 vulnerable, than, when he lent it, he had been in- 
 duced to believe. Shortly afterwards, these Remarks 
 ^\eTe published, as already stated ; but, that the form 
 in which they appeared might not create surmises, 
 
'INTRODUCTORY NARRATION. Xiii 
 
 calculated to excite unpleasant feelings, nothing of 
 conversation or dialogue was retained. Thev -svere 
 addressed immediately to the Author of the " Aae 
 of Reason," then alive, in the same manner as they 
 are now presented to the m orkh 
 
 The young gentleman, who is now in eternity, and, 
 therefore, cannot be affected by this relation, con- 
 tinued, for some time, to waver in uncertainty. He 
 had embraced infidelity; and he hesitated to abandon 
 the object of his choice, though he candidly con- 
 fessed, he was miable either to defend its principles, 
 or to avert the consequences to Avhich they must 
 inevitably lead. In this state of fluctuation, his mind 
 continued, for some time; his attachment growing 
 less and less sanguine ; until his suspicions were 
 transferred from the Bible to the '* Age of Reason," 
 and his confidence in Thomas Paine \^as happily 
 exchanged, for a more pleasing confidence in the 
 authenticity of Divine Revelation. 
 
 When this alteration in his views had taken place, 
 ..lie did not hesitate to acknowledge, that his design, 
 
Xiv INTRODUCTORY NARRATION. 
 
 in leiuliug the " Age of Reason " to tlie Autlior, 
 
 Y ;ijj, under tlie hope, that he shouhl be successful in 
 proselj'tiug him to the principles of infidelity; but 
 that, being disappointed in his expectation, his mind 
 became perplexed; and he soon found that his at- 
 tempt had produced an eiTect exactly the reverse 
 of A\hat he had intended. Sliortly afterwards, ho 
 
 V ns taken ill; and, after languishing for some months, 
 i;i a decline, his iv.ortal remains were carried to 
 the " house appointed for all hving." Tbii change, 
 and tliis conviction, wliicli the Author believes ac- 
 eonipanied him to his death, he attributed, almost 
 exclusively, to the causes which ha^e been assigned; 
 which, awakeniny: his mind to deliberate reflection, 
 directed it to explore those distant issues and con- 
 sequences, vAliich infidelity does not instruct its 
 votaries or victims to suivey. 
 
 It is a possible ca?e, that many may, at this 
 moment, be precisely in the situation of the above 
 young gentleman, when he lent the "Age of Reason'' 
 to the Author. The pride of intellect iirids grati- 
 fication in deviating fiom tbe ciet^d of the vulgar. 
 
INTRODUCTORY XARRAtloy. XF 
 
 v\ i lioui advertiiio: to those awful realities, v.liich 
 eternity ouly can ntifold. Sanctioned Ly the pro- 
 fessions, and fascinated v%ith the eondujt, of the 
 sprightly, the daring, the proHigate, and the gay^ 
 it is much to he feared, that multitndes renounce 
 Hevelation, and emhrace inSdelity, without fairly 
 examining the principles of either. In tlie former, 
 they had nothing, hat a nominal assent, to lose ; and 
 the latter they emhrace, ratlier to ensure a fashion- 
 ahle comitenance, than from aiiy sincere conviction 
 that thev are actlnt: a rational part. 
 
 Independently of the additions Mhich have hcen. 
 made, in this edition, on some occasions a change 
 of words has been intj-oduced, to render sentences 
 more expressive, and to give distinctness and per- 
 spicuity to those ideas which were intended to he 
 conveyed. In most other respects, the arguments 
 remain in the same connexions in which they ori- 
 ginally appeared, except where, on re-examination, 
 more mature re'lection has dictated the necessity of 
 ail alteration. 
 
xri INTRODUCTORY NARRATION. 
 
 Of late, the poison of infidelity Las been so 
 copiously administered, as to call for legislative 
 interference ; and, to prevent its banefid effects, 
 every antidote is necessary. Should the republica- 
 tion of this little volume, produce in any one, an 
 etfeet, similar to that which has been mentioned, 
 the Author -will rejoice to find that it ha.>< n^^t 
 been reprinted in vain. 
 
 FehiVLary, 18*20. 
 
REMARKS 
 
 ox 
 
 "THE AGE OF REASON," 
 
 ADDRESSED 
 
 To THOMAS PAINE. 
 
 A. SHORT time since, an acquaintance of mine 
 favoured me with a sight of your book, entitled, 
 " The Age of Reason." 
 
 ■^s" 
 
 From the celebrity of its Author, the title which 
 it bore, and the various reports which had been cir- 
 culated respecting it, my expectations were greatly- 
 raised ; and I began to read it, with that eagerness 
 of curiosity, >^ hich such circumstances are calculated 
 to excite. 
 
 I have now finished the perusal. I have inves- 
 tigated, with all the candour and attention of which 
 I was capable, every observation which I conceived 
 worthy of notice, in the first part of your book ; and, 
 to the utmost of my power, have examined the force 
 
 B 2 
 
20 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 of these endowments to be exceediudv low: other- 
 "wise, even presumption itseh' could hardly have 
 persuaded you, that all, which had been held sacred 
 for ages, by millions of the human species, among 
 whom are many of the most exalted genius and most 
 splendid talents that have ever adorned our common 
 nature, was to disappear, in a moment, before the 
 production of your pen. 
 
 With thinking people, you have forfeited a consi- 
 derable portion of your reputation, by the irreverent 
 manner of writing which you have adopted, and, 
 through a mode of reasoning as singular as your 
 principles are daring, by inferring, from the sources 
 of religion, the vices of its professors. Among those, 
 in whom the miholy passions of limnan nature are 
 predominant, there can be no doubt, that your book 
 w ill find a favourable reception ; but it is not to yoiu' 
 literary advantage, to reflect, that the ferocity of 
 those passions, to which you appeal, can never be 
 subdued by any specific which the *' Age of Reason" 
 supplies; but that it may be found in another Book, 
 which the " Age of Reason" was written to destroy. 
 
 The first observation, in your pamphlet, on which 
 I shall make any remark, is in page 4, a^ here you 
 define " a churchy icheiher Christian, Jewish, or Ma- 
 *' hometan" to be " something set up to terrify and 
 ** enslave mankiniV My chief reason for quoting 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 21 
 
 tliis passage is, to compare it m ith wliat follows, in 
 the same page, where you call the connexion be- 
 tween chui'ch and state " adulterous.'' On this 1 
 observe, religion must be either true or false ; if 
 true, your definition cannot be right ; if false, the 
 connexion between church and state cannot be 
 adulterous. For if it be ** an institution invented 
 '* to monopolize power and profit," its design must 
 be to promote that end. However it acts, or in 
 Avhat form soever it operates, it still preserves its 
 proper place, provided it keeps that end in view. 
 How then can any connexion, or alliance it may 
 form, be adulterous, during the progress of its ope- 
 ration, and while it degenerates not from the first 
 design of its institution. You say, '' The adulterous 
 " connexion between church and state, wherever it 
 *' had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or 
 ** Turkish, had effectually prohibited, by pains and 
 *' penalties, every discussion upon established creeds.*^ 
 How, Sir, does this aliect Revelation ? It is not 
 because right principles have been violated, that 
 they are to be abandoned. The evils you mention, 
 originate in a departure from the principles of Re- 
 velation, and not an obedience to, nor an application 
 of them. 
 
 Mhat would you think, in a civil sense, if a mad 
 revolutionist were to apply your principles, of the 
 ecjuality of man, to an indiscriminate system of 
 
22 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 rajjine anil plmider; to break down all order in 
 civil society ; to seize the property of industrious 
 iadividiiaL*, to Avliicli the former possessors alone had 
 a right? What Avoidd you say in reply, if your 
 principles were charged \vith such acts of indiscrimi- 
 nate atrocity? AVould you not contend, that these 
 things arose from a misunderstanding, or a misappli- 
 cation, or a V. iliul perversion of your principles ; or 
 V ould you not think yourself unjustly char2:ed v.itli 
 suc]i enormities as I have mentioned, because you 
 asserted the equality of the human race ? Unless I 
 am greatly deceived, these things will apply to the 
 case in hand. You charge the pains and penalties 
 of intolerance on that system which is exactly the 
 reverse, and to which it is totally unkuo'>\n. If 
 there be those, whom you accuse, in the end of your 
 iDOok, with the ignorance of blending doctrine witli 
 authenticity, I think you are equally chargeable with 
 blending the principles of Christianity with the vices 
 of those who have departed from them. "When you 
 can prove, either by rational argiunent, or passages 
 of Scripture, tliat Christianity mculcates a spirit of 
 intolerance, then, and not till then, will I allow 
 youi* charge to be just. 
 
 In page -3, you define Revelation to be '' so7nething 
 *' immediately communicated from God to man;''* 
 you then add, "// /s a contradiction in terms to call 
 " any tliinfj a revelation, ickich coincs to us second 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 23 
 
 " handed, eiiher verhalbiy or in urltuiy. JReiela- 
 '' tion is necessarily liiniied to the Jiist communi- 
 '* cation.'' f think it is obvious, that God, according 
 to the present constitution of creation, cannot render 
 hiinsfcif visible to our bodily organs, without inter- 
 rupting the course of nature ; nor can it be, that 
 material organs can discern spiritual and incoiporeal 
 essences. Agreeably to tliis principle, Ave find a 
 correspondence of facts; and, if ^ve take analogy for 
 our gnide, we may reasonably presume, that this 
 truth is of universal application. As it is certain, 
 that God never has, in the eiiulgence of liis glory, 
 rendered himself visible to our bodily organs, so it is 
 highly probable, that he never can thus communicate 
 to us any knowledge of himself, without granting a 
 proportionate assistance to our intellects and senses, 
 or without imparting new powers, wholly disthict 
 from those which we now possess. All our know- 
 ledge of God must, therefore, necessarily renuire 
 some medium or other ; and, consequently, as this 
 will prevent the intercourse from being immediate, 
 there neither is, nor can be, such an immediate 
 communication from God, as you require, within the 
 reach of possibility. In the natural world, he 
 
 '• Warms in the sun, refreshes in the breeze, 
 " Glows in the stars, and blossoms in the trees." 
 
 And, in the moral,, whether an angel from lieaACU 
 should be sent to declaie his will, or the dictates 
 
24 REMARKS, ADDRESSEtJ 
 
 of omnipotence should be impressed upon the con- 
 science ; whether tables of stone should transmit the 
 Divine command, or the human intellect should be 
 selected for the important purpose ; in either case, a 
 medium of communication will appear. 
 
 Now, a communication from God, abstracted from 
 all mediums, would not be oral or written Revelation, 
 but sensible proof; and sensible proof, I have already 
 argued, is impossible in our present state ; and nothing 
 besides can be immediate. And, if the immediate- 
 ness of Revelation be destroyed, it must, admitting 
 it to exist, necessarily pass beyond the first communi- 
 cation. That sensible proof is necessarily limited 
 to the first communication, I readily admit ; but with 
 oral or written Revelation, the case is quite other\^ ise. 
 Had the Bible recommended itself to us, on the 
 evidence of sensation, and yet withheld that evidence 
 on which it rested, your observations would have 
 been just, that " it is a contradiction in terms, 
 " to call any thing a sensation, "after the first 
 " communication ; " and that '* it is necessarily li- 
 " mited to the first communication.'" If Revelation 
 be, what you say, (and what I believe,) *' a commu- 
 ** nication of something, ichich ice knew not before" 
 there is no necessity of limiting it to the first, nor to 
 the second communication ; but it may run parallel 
 with that ignorance, which its design was to re^ 
 move. 
 
)! 
 
 TO THOMAS PAIN'E. 25 
 
 After lia-< iug, in page o, necessarily excluded from 
 the idea of Revelation all who are not icithui the 
 limits of the Jirst communication, you say, page 12, 
 " Revelation cannot he applied to any thing done 
 " upon earth, of ichich man is either the actor or 
 " ^citness.'^ Now, how any Revelation can be pos- 
 sible, on your principles, I know not; for, if it be a 
 " contradiction, to call any thing a Revelation, after 
 '* the first communication," all, who are not present, 
 must, of necessity, be excluded; and, of course, none, 
 but such as are within the reach of the first commu- 
 nication, can have any Revelation. But when you 
 say, '' Xothing can he a Revelation, of which man is 
 *' either the actor or icitness," you completely exclude 
 all who are present; for it is impossible for any 
 thing to be revealed to me, and yet leave me without 
 any knowledge of it : and with my knowledge, I am 
 the witness, to myself, of that Revelation. But, if 
 ray being a witness, necessarily destroys R^velatiou 
 to me, and Revelation be destroved in those who are 
 absent, because they are without witness, you leave 
 nobody to whom a Revelation is possible. And vet 
 you say, page 5, '* Xo one can douht, hut God can. 
 ** make such a communication, if he please'^ How 
 these contradictions are to be reconciled, I leave you 
 to determine ; and until this shall be done, I cannot 
 but conclude, that, the different parts of your argu- 
 ment mihtate against each other, and conspire t« 
 overthrow the whole, 
 
 c 
 
-26 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 Assuming it then as an unquestionable fact, that, 
 Ood makes himself knov*'n always through mediums, 
 the next thing to be considered is, Who has the just 
 right of selecting them for his purposes ? It must 
 he either man, or God ; but I will not draw the 
 conchision, — It must be God. These things being 
 premised, I ask, Who, sir, gave you authority to 
 prescribe to the Almighty, the means and instruments 
 ■of his communication ? To say, that God shall be 
 limited in liis actions, by finite hitelligences, is to 
 deprive him of omnipotence. If he has not the 
 po\^ er of selecting the modes of his own communi- 
 cation, he cannot be omnipotent ; for I consider 
 every thing, when applied to God, to be within his 
 poA^er to accomplish, except what is absolutely im- 
 possible. Xo^Y, if God had thought proper to com- 
 inunicate a Revelation of his v. ill to tlie human race, 
 the universe lay before him, to take what instrument 
 he pleased, to make subservient to his benign purpose ; 
 and, consequently, he had as much liberty to select 
 the human intellect, for his puq)ose, as he had the 
 planetary w orlds ; for, if the human intellect be ob- 
 jectionable, because liable to fraud and imposture, 
 tlie planetary worlds are equally objectionable, be- 
 cause liable to misinterpretation, and because unin- 
 telligible to the greater part of the human race. If, 
 therefore, it is irrational, in us, to discard the thing 
 .communicated, merely because we happen to dislike 
 the medium of connnuaication, the absurdity of your 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 2? 
 
 eeiiduct nmst be obvious, in rejecting Ilevelation, 
 m<"relv because you cannot discover how God caiT 
 make it pass Ijeyond the baunds of the first com- 
 nnHiication. 
 
 Before you thus acted, it might not have beeiv 
 amiss, if you had inquired, whether a more immediate- 
 IleveLition, than that which we conceive God to 
 have ffiven, were within the reach of possibility; 
 e^ en if you had not defined the nature of that, with 
 v.hich you woukt ha^e been satisfied. A Kevela- 
 tion, I presume, to please 3 ou, must be, for ever, 
 in a state of actual communication. In all the ages 
 that are to come, as ^\ell as in all that are past, a 
 state of equal exliibition must be necessary ; and the 
 present generation must partake of the common 
 evidence; which must be alike intelligible to the 
 meanest capacity, and the most exalted intellect ; 
 otherwise, you will object, that " the way to God is 
 cot open to all alike." 
 
 AVhcther it Mould have been more easy for God, 
 accordmg to our local ideas of ease and difficulty, 
 to render the material creation universally intelli- 
 gible, to every capacity, than to make written 
 Revelation subser^ient to his purpose, and to pre- 
 serve that Revelation, from corruption, through the 
 progress of time, seems to be a question, on which 
 we have no right to spccidate. I thinks tliat both 
 
28 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 must be eqiuiliv possible, when applied to God; nor 
 fecin I conceive, that it implies " a contradiction in 
 terras, to call any thing a Ke^ elation, after the lirst 
 vommunication.*' 
 
 That God shoidd be able, if he so pleased, to make 
 the human intellect the primitive vehicle, and written 
 Revelation the medium of his communications to 
 njan, no ojie has a right to doubt, who will allow the 
 Divine Being to possess infinity power ; unless he 
 ran make it appear, that the supposition includes 
 < onttadictory ideas; and this I conceive, no one will 
 presume to undertake. And, consequently, the same 
 power can, with equal ease, preserve a Revelation 
 of his will, thus communicated, from all coriuptions, 
 through all the ages of the world. If, indeed, from 
 the perfection of your knowledge, you can demon- 
 strate, that these mediums are incapable of being 
 made, bv Almi^htv Power and ^A isdom, tlie iustru- 
 ments through which God can communicate his v\iil 
 tu mankind, then, and not. tilL then, will it appear to 
 be " a contradiction in terms, to call any thing a 
 iie\ elation after the lirst communication,' 
 
 In page 6, you have introduced a kind of narra- 
 ti- e, of your own fabrication, w ith an artifice calcu- 
 lated to excite contempt; J:»ut, with thinking people, 
 that contempt w ill rather rest on its author,^ than on 
 tbat Revelation which it was written to expose. 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 29 
 
 Yon saj'", " It is curious to observe, Jwv: ilie theorij 
 " of ichat is called the Christian church, sprang out 
 " of the tail of the Heathen mythology. ^^ That your 
 curiosity should be excited, m hen you think a favour- 
 able opportunity presents itself, of bringing::the Bible 
 into disrepute, is not a matter that excites much 
 surprise; but evidence, that would connect your 
 allegations with truth, would prove more satisfactory 
 than an expression of curiosity. But so contrary 
 to fact is this assertion, that we find no more than 
 two or three quotations, from any Heathen author, 
 in all the Xew Testament, and these are merely 
 moral sentences ; while the Old Testament is quoted 
 and alluded to about five hundred times. As a 
 proof of ray assertion, I beg leave to lay before you 
 the following passages, as a specimen. 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT COMPARED WITH THE NEW. 
 
 Place of Christ's nativity, Micah v. 2 Matt.ii.6. 
 
 Birth of Christ, liraiah vii. 14 Matt. i. 23. 
 
 Entry into Jerusalem,. . . Zech. ix. 9. Matt. xxi. 5. 
 
 Passion of Christ, Psalm xxii. 16—18. John \ix. 24. 
 
 Resurrection, Psalm xvi. 10 Acts ii. 24. 
 
 Ascensiun, Psalm Ixviii. IS. . . Ephes. i v, 8. 
 
 Right hand of God Psalm ex. 1 Heb. i. 13. 
 
 These predictions, and their accomphshmcnt, are 
 in such accordance with each other, that we can 
 tto more deny them, than Me can render them 
 
 € 2 
 
^ REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 iiiapplicable to Clirist, \\itiioiit ijivohiiig oiirselve? 
 ill absurdity. 
 
 Xor does it appear, that eitber tbe Stoics, or tbe 
 Epicureans, in tbe days oi" tbe Apostles, were ac- 
 quainted witb tbe discovery wbicb you bave made, 
 Ey tbese, Paul was accused, witb being " a setter 
 forth of strange Gods," wben be preacbed unto tlieni 
 Jesus, and tbe resurrection.* And for tbis oiTence, 
 he was taken and brougbt unto tbe Areopagus, and 
 charged with bringing strange things to their ears. 
 
 Should tbis evidence be rejected, becuuse drawn 
 from that Book, of wbicb you profess to doubt the 
 atithentieity, permit me to call your attention to tbe 
 observations of one, whom you will scarcely suspect 
 <ff pai'tiality. 
 
 '* I will confess to you farther, that the majesty 
 '^ of the Scriptures strikes me with admiration, as 
 *•' the purity of the Gospel hath its influence on my 
 " heart. Peruse the works of our philosophers : 
 " with all their pomp of diction, how mean, bow 
 " contemptible, are they, compared with the Sciip- 
 *' tures! Is it possible, that a Book, at once so 
 *' sublime, and so simple, should be the work of 
 ••'man? Is it possible, that the Sacred Personage^ 
 
 * Acts. xvii. IS.- 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 
 
 31 
 
 whose history it contains, should be himself a mere 
 man ? Do we find, that he assumed the air of an 
 enthusiast, or ambitious sectary ? AVhat sweetness! 
 What purity of manners ! What an affecting grace- 
 fulness in his deli^ ery ! What sublimity in his 
 maxims! What profound wisdom in his discourses! 
 T^'hat presence of mind 1 What subtilty ! AVhat 
 truth in his replies ! How great the command 
 over his passions ! Where is the man, where is 
 the philosopher, who could so live and die without 
 weakness, and without ostentation ? Shall we sup- 
 pose the Evangelical History to be a mere fiction? 
 Indeed, my friend, it bears not the marks of 
 fiction. On the contrary, the history of Socrates, 
 which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well 
 attested as that of Jesus Christ. The Jewish au- 
 thors were incapable of the diction, and strangers 
 to the morality, contained in the Gospel; the 
 marks of whose truth are so striking and invin- 
 cible, that the inventor would be a more astonishing 
 character than the hero."* 
 
 You afTect, indeed, in the page I have last quoted, 
 to speak highly of the personal character of Jesus 
 Christ ; yet, strange as it may appear, his apostles 
 and disciples, who trod in liis steps, and followed his 
 example, inculcated tlie same morality, and preached 
 the same doctrine, have the honourable misfortime 
 
 * Rousseau, vol. v., p. 215 — 218, 
 
32 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 of meriting your censure, and your scorn. *' Jesns 
 " Christ,''^ you say, " appears to be a virtuous and 
 ^' an amiable character;" but, liow you will be able 
 to reconcile this, with his own assertion, *• I and 
 my Father are one," it will be somewhat difficult 
 to discover. For, if the sentiment, contained in this 
 assertion, be true, all your attempts, to invalidate the 
 evidence of the ^ew Testament, are founded in false- 
 hood ; and, if this assertion be false, you must im- 
 peach his morality, by allowing a man to be virtuous, 
 who could aspire to an equality with God ; and, in 
 either case, you evidently convict yourself. 
 
 It will be in vain to reply, that this is hearsay 
 evidence. If Bible evidence be hearsay, I would 
 ask, From what source did you derive your informa- 
 tion, respecting Christ and his Apostles ? You quote, 
 without hesitation, from the Bible, whatever you 
 conceive will militate against the characters of those 
 whom you condemn, and invalidate the authenticity 
 of the Book itself; } ou cannot, therefore, in common 
 justice, refuse an appeal to the same authority, even 
 when an opposite purpose is to be sened. And, 
 when this is granted, unless I am much deceived, 
 the head of prejudice will be more conspicuous than 
 the tail of the Heathen mythology. 
 
 In page 7, you seem displeased with the account 
 given of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 33 
 
 Christ, because it wants publicity. Your words are, 
 " Tite resurrection and ascension, supposing them to 
 '• have taken place, adiniited of public and ocular de- 
 " monstration, like that of a balloon, or the sun at noon 
 *' day, to all Jerusalem at least: a thing which every 
 " one is required to believe, requires that the prooj 
 '' and evidence of if shou-d be equal to all, and uni- 
 " vvrsal ; 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 
 
 To render these things universally visible, is 
 not, in the nature of things, possible ; as no kind of 
 ligiire whatever, coidd be rendered visible, at once, 
 to all the millions of beings which Mere scattered 
 o\ er the surface of an opaque and spherical body 
 like the earth which we inhabit. Besides, in some 
 parts of the world it must have been total niglit. In 
 addition to all this, to satisfy joiu- incredulity, he 
 nmst have arisen from every place, and at all times, 
 andiue\ery age; the absuidity and impossibility of 
 which, need only be mentioned to be despised. If 
 this idea be too gross to be admitted, let us turn our 
 thoughts to the subject in another form. 
 
 As all could not be admitted as evidences to this 
 transaction, ^hat part shall be dismissed.' It must 
 
34 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 be ail the past, all tlie future, and nine tenths of tlie - 
 world besides ; and all those who were thus ex- 
 eluded, must necessarily depend on those who saw it, 
 for eYQvy information they obtained on the subject- 
 Mere, then, YOU must admit that ^ery principle, for 
 which you condemn Revelation. 
 
 The principle being admitted. What number shall 
 be fixed on, as proxies for the whole ^vorid ? That 
 an overwhelming majority must be excluded, cannot 
 be denied; and, under these circumstances, I can 
 discover no necessity, that would require the relater 
 of the event to bring more evidence of the truth of 
 his allegation, than that which the New Testament 
 affords. It appears, therefore, that those who wit- 
 nessed the fact, are sufficiently strong, in point of 
 reason, to obtain the credit of the whole world ; for, 
 if ten men of unimpeached reputations are insufficient 
 to establish a fact, no number can be free frojn 
 the same objection : the objection which will apply 
 to ten men, will be proportionably forcible against 
 ten thousand. If you can demonstrate any number 
 to be more proper for the purpose, than what is re- 
 corded, you will oblige the Christian world by your 
 discoverv. 
 
 As it is impossible for any thing to be and not to be, 
 at the same time, so it is impossible for the resurrection 
 to tate place in the present age, for this plain reason, 
 
r 
 
 TO THOMAS PAI!^E. 35 
 
 because it is already past ; and, therefore, its proof 
 cannot be equal to all, and universal. Thus are you 
 under the necessity of renouncing that universal pub- 
 licity, for which you contend, and of reducing it to a 
 number of proxies, which you affect to despise : so 
 that, view this subject in what light you please, it 
 upbraids you \^ ith its own absurdity. 
 
 Page 8. " But it appears, Thomas did not believe 
 " the resurrection, or as they say, would not believe 
 •' it, without having ocular or manual demonstration 
 '* himself; neither will I: and the reason is as good 
 "for me, and every one else, as for Thomas.^' I an- 
 swer, if so, Christ would have nothing else to do, but 
 to travel from country to country, to satisfy individual 
 incredulity. This is demanding a proof which is im- 
 possible ; for, if there be about nine hundred miUions 
 of inhabitants on the surface of the earth at once, and 
 the average age of all be at thirty years, ^hich must 
 be far above the mark, he must have given " ocular 
 and manual demonstration" to nearly four hmidred 
 persons every minute, without allowing any inten al 
 of time, to move from place to place ; which, in the 
 nature of things, is impossible ; and, if so, all cannot 
 have that ocular and sensible proof, which you so 
 unreasonably demand. 
 
 Secondly, if all the inhabitants, who were alive 
 when that event took place, had a right to make that 
 
36 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 demand, the age Mhicli succeeded it had the same 
 right; and the next in snccession had the same; and 
 the demand will hold equally good, through the m hole 
 progress of time. From hence it will follow, that 
 all have not a right to make tlie same demand that 
 Thomas did; for he had an opportimity of satis- 
 fying his incredulity, which Ave have not; and the 
 ^;ensible evidence, which was possible to him, is im- 
 possible to you and me. Thirdly, setting aside the 
 impossibility arising from the nature of things, a 
 compliance Avith your demand woidd anniliilate the 
 system of Christian Revelation ; for the death of 
 Christ is as necessary as his life ; and his resurrec- 
 tion as necessary as his death ; and his ascension as 
 necessary as either: and, if so, to demand individual,, 
 ocular, manual demonstration of the truth of the 
 resurrection of Christ, is to destroy the existence 
 of that system, which you design thus to demon- 
 strate. For, admitting that he should condescend 
 to give sensitive proof to all, he must be detained 
 upon earth as long as human life exists ; and, there- 
 fore, could not ascend into heaven. But, m aving all 
 these things, the amount of your argument is this. 
 Men, as rational beings, ought not to become 
 Christians until they have obtained a proof which is 
 absolutely impossible as well as unreasonable; and 
 ought not to give credit to the Christian system, until 
 it be destroyed. If this be the rationality of Deism, 
 it wants a better reconmiendation. 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 3T 
 
 What follov/s, is but mere matter of opinion ; 
 ret even this is erroneous ; for you must either re- 
 nounce your opinion, or incorporate hes with the 
 morality of Christ. You say, *' It is not improbable^ 
 " hilt Jesus Christ had in view the delivery of the 
 *' Jewish nation from the Roman bondage;^ but Jesus 
 Christ says, " My kingdom is not of this world.'* 
 Which of these t^^ o assertions shall we believe ? 
 You cannot both be entitled to credit. His, however, 
 is an actual declaration, in the negative ; yours, 
 mere presumption, to the contrary : and that your 
 opinion is wrong, appears from this single reflec- 
 tion. The Jews must certainly have known better 
 in that day, than you can in this, whether Christ 
 had any such object in view ; but they say not one 
 word about it. His preaching was levelled at their 
 hypocrisy and vice. Hence, he compares them to 
 whited walls, or to painted sepulchres, which appear 
 fair to view, but within are full of rottenness, and 
 dead men's bones ; and they, not being able to w ith- 
 stand the force of his reproofs, cons^pired against him. 
 They charged him with crimes which they could not 
 prove; and, through the interest of their prejudices, 
 he was apprehended, condemned, and crucified. The 
 descendants of these men, who stand as living monu- 
 jnents of the truth of Scripture, retain, to this day, 
 the prejudices of their forefathers, and their general 
 language is, *' Crucify him, crucify him. " This 
 easily accounts for the backwardness of modem 
 
 D 
 
 J 
 
38 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 Jews, to vindicate llie character or doctrine of 
 Christ. How you came by that monstrous idea, 
 — " It is not improbable, but Christ had iti view 
 '' the delivery of the Jewish nation, from the Roman 
 ** bondage ; but that, between contending factions, 
 " this viriuons revolutionist lost his life,^' — I know 
 not. It seems to be a creature of your o^.»ti fancy : 
 for, if the Jews had entertained sncli an opinion, they 
 Avould rather have a entnred their lives in his behalf, 
 than have made such strenuous exertions to procure 
 his execution. 
 
 In page 9, you bring into the field a dreadftJ 
 train of philosophical artillery, which you thus dis- 
 charge over the system of Hevelation. After ob- 
 serving, that '* the fable of Jwpiter and the giants 
 *' suggested the idea of the Christian Revelation, ^^ 
 you say, that '* the story of the giants teas told 
 
 * many hundred years before that of Satan. The 
 ' Christian mythologisfs, after having confined Satan 
 ' in a Jilt, were obliged to let him out again, in 
 ' order to bring en the sequel of their fable: he is 
 ' then introduced. irJo the garden of Eden, in the 
 ' shape cf a snake, or serpent ; and, in that shape, 
 ' he enters into a familiar conversation wiih Eve, 
 ' who is no ways surprised to hear a snake talk : and 
 
 * the issue of this icfe-a-ttfe is, that he j^^^'^uades 
 
 * her to eat an apple ; and the eating of that apple 
 ^ damns all mankind." I am inclined to think. 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 39 
 
 first, tliat you -will not find it so easy, to prove the 
 superior antiquity of the Heathen mythology. I may 
 defy you, or any other person, to produce a cha- 
 racter more remote than the deluge ; to which period 
 Christianity appeals : although, from the best accounts 
 extant, it is not difficiilt to prove, that most of the 
 original names in the Heathen mythology, are derived 
 from Xoah and his descendants, from a misunder- 
 standing or misapplication cf their characters. But 
 the story of Satan, the serpent, and Eve, are of a 
 much more ancient date. 
 
 Secondly, you have started, in the above quotation, 
 a question, for ^vhich, on the principles of Deism, 
 you cannot account ; namely, the introduction of 
 moral ei:il into the world. There is not, I believe, 
 any historical account extant, but carries with it 
 some external or internal evidence of the degeneracy 
 of the human race. The Bible gires a brief narration 
 of facts, from the creation ; and it opens, almost, with 
 the introduction of moral evil. It is an easier task, 
 fur you to give to the Bible an air of fable, than 
 to controvert those facts, v\hich are contained in 
 the present consideration. I will not, ho\\ e^ er, ap- 
 peal, like yourself, to a book which you disbelieve, 
 for a proof of facts, of which you deny the exist- 
 ence ; nor to traditionary mythology ; but to reason 
 and rccdities. 
 
 .^ 
 
40 REMAEKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 The truth or falsehood of the Bible is, then, ut 
 present, out of the question. Facts and reason you 
 cannot deny ; especially reason, which you seem to 
 deify more than Christians do Satan. I am inclined 
 to think, that, as an individual, you believe we were 
 created by God ; and, this being admitted, you can- 
 not deny, that the Power which created all things, 
 A\ hatev er it be, must be the general Parent of the 
 universe. Various ha\e been, and still are, the 
 opinions among men, respecting the origin of things. 
 Atheists ascribe it to chance; Fatalists, to necessity; 
 and Deists, to a God, whom they variously define, 
 j^ome conceive him to be a mere philosophical ab- 
 straction ; others view him as the soul of the world ; 
 and others survey him as a solitary being, who, 
 having created the universe, has abandoned it to the 
 dominion of fate, or the caprice of chance. The 
 Bible asserts God to be a moral governor of the 
 imiverse, and the superintendent of human affairs. 
 it appears, to me, that you are of that number, 
 who consider God as dehvering up all to second 
 ckuses, and never concerning himself about mundane 
 ailairs. 
 
 As the supposition, that action may be prior to 
 existence, involves a palpable contradiction, it is 
 certain, that nothing could create itself; and, there- 
 fore, not man. All things however, must either 
 
^1 
 
 TO THOMAS PAINE. 41 
 
 be created, or eternal. That the individuals of the 
 human race are not eternal, Ave liaTe evidence, from 
 daily mortality ; and, as not one of the parts is eter- 
 nal, so neither can the whole, Tvhich is formed of 
 these parts. 3Ian, therefore, is not eternal. 
 
 The only essences wliidi we know to exist, ar& 
 those of matter and spirit ; to these, therefore, we 
 must turn our thoughts, for the origin of things. 
 As to chance and fate, they are but the creatures 
 of imagination ; and, consequently, they could not 
 have created the world. 
 
 Tlie question now renews itself. How came this 
 universe to exist ? It must be either created or 
 eternal ; for it has been already proved, that nothing 
 could create itself. That it is not eternal, is evident, 
 from the following considerations. 
 
 Motion cannot be eternal, because it depends on 
 matter for its existence : nor could matter primarily 
 beget motion; for then motion must have existed prior 
 to primary motion, which involves a contradiction. 
 If we deny the existence of an intelligent being, and 
 admit matter to be eternal, we involve ourselves in 
 new difficulties about the origin of motion. That 
 local motion is not inseparable from matter, we have 
 4lie most sensible proofs ; daily observation deinQO' 
 
 D 2 
 
42 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 strating, that matter does exist without it; raotion 
 must be, therefore, either a mode or an accident of 
 matter, or a superadded quahty ; but, in admitting it 
 to be either of these, we destroy its eternity. If 
 motion be not eternal, how came it to exist ? Was 
 it produced by matter, or by itself? It could not 
 be produced by matter ; for this implies motion prior 
 to motion : nor could it be produced by itself; for 
 this would be to suppose in ^notion, an action prior 
 to its own existence. If, then, matter has received 
 motion from some power distinct from, and inde- 
 pendent of itself, — which it necessarily must, — matter 
 itself must be dependant ; and, consequently, it is not 
 eternal; and that Power, on which it depends, 
 must be God. As matter could not, any more than 
 motion, create itself, or be eternal, for reasons 
 already assigned, it must be created; and that, 
 which created it, must be God. The God who 
 created it, must, also, be something more than a 
 philosophical abstraction; and, if more, he must pos- 
 sess intelligence; and include, in his natui-e, thos« 
 perfections which we call his attributes. 
 
 \^Tiat these attributes are, — where they extend, — 
 or how they operate, we know only in part ; never- 
 theless, we know enough to attain to some knowledge 
 of the Divine nature. In the human mind, we dis- 
 cern his intelligence ; in the supply of all our wants. 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 43 
 
 we behold his goodness ; in contemplating the struc- 
 ture of the universe, we discover his wisdom in 
 arranging, as well as his power in creating and 
 sustaining; and, in contemplating the order, harmony, 
 and disposal of all above, and all below, we behold 
 his justice. But what justice is, in all the relations 
 it bears to God, we cannot fully comprehend ; nor 
 is it possible, that any faculty of the human mind, 
 can grasp an attribute of the Infinite God, any more 
 than a part can comprehend or contain a whole, of 
 which itself is but a part. In fine, what we conceive 
 of God, is an assemblage of all possible perfections, 
 abstracted from all possible moral evil. It is to this 
 God we now turn our thoughts, and ask. Of what 
 nature and essential properties did he create man ? 
 
 It is certain, that the beings whom he created, 
 must have partaken of his perfections, so far as their 
 natures, in their respective spheres, were capable of 
 partaking them. On the human mind, he must 
 necessarily have stamped in miniature, his wisdom, 
 justice, goodness, rectitude, and love; nor could 
 there be, in the nature of man, any degree of moral 
 evil. 
 
 The importance of the question new arises, How 
 came man possessed of moral evil ? To say, that 
 God created him morally evil, is to charge God with 
 the tui'pitude of erery bad action, and to destroy 
 
44 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 those attributes, wliicli are essential to his nature 
 and existence. But, as moral evil cannot be attri- 
 buted to God, it must have been derived from some 
 other source. As the existence of the fact cannot 
 be denied, the only question remaining is, ^Vhat 
 cause brought it into being ? If man were created in 
 a state of moral rectitude, — which must be admitted, 
 — there could exist in him, no propensity to wicked- 
 ness ; and, if no propensity, it must follow, that man 
 must, at least, be equally indifferent to moral good 
 and evil. It would, therefore, follow, if evil and 
 goodness were but accidents of the mind, that we 
 might rationally expect to find as many morally good,. 
 as morally bad ; but facts will repel this conclusion. 
 Now, as the human mind tends universally to evil^ 
 and as there are none untainted, there cannot be 
 a stronger proof, that some evil principle predomi- 
 nates. But how could it be introduced ? — how could 
 it begin ? Bad example may influence the present 
 generation of men ; but it could not influence where 
 it was not, nor act before it had a beginning ; and 
 there was a time when bad example Avas not. As 
 moral evil, therefore, must have been introduced, and 
 tave existed prior to bad example, bad example 
 could not be the primary cause of moral evil. How 
 can you fairly account for its introduction ? I appeal 
 to your ingenuity, — I appeal to your reason, to give a, 
 more rational account than is given in that Book^ 
 ^ hich you so unphilosopUically despLje. 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 4-3 
 
 Id the great chain of being, man, who "s^ as to be 
 a distinguished link, was endowed with rationaht}-, 
 which rationahty impHed a capacity for happiness. 
 This, together with the freedom of the human mtellect, 
 arises necessarily from the nature of man, and the 
 attributes of God ; and, as happiness was the result 
 of these principles, so happiness depended upon the 
 retention of them. In this state, human nature must 
 have had a law, as a test of obedience, — as a proof 
 of dependauce, — and as an incitement to gratitude ; 
 otherwise, the sovereign of this world must have 
 befen consigned over to lawless anarchy, while all the 
 inferior orders of animated beings would have had 
 their respective laws, pointed out by instincts, im- 
 planted in their natures ; but, as this would have 
 mihtated against the order of things, it is not rea« 
 sonable to admit it. If, on the other hand, man 
 had a law, it must have been prescribed either by 
 himself, or God; but, certainly, God, as creator, had 
 an exclusive right to prescribe the law, and to define 
 its terms. This law w as given ; and it v.as easily to 
 be obeyed, because it was plainly to be miderstood 
 The greater the injunction, the more severity would 
 have appeared, and the more circumscribed must 
 have been human liberty ; but God, on the present 
 occasion, reduced the discharge of moral obligation, 
 to a single point ; promising life on obedience, and 
 tlireatening death on transgression. 
 
46 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 But wliat were the conditions, on Avliicli these great 
 events were suspended ? They follow : — " Of every 
 tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat ; but of the 
 tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt 
 not eat of it ; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, 
 thou shalt surely die."* And there can be little 
 reason to doubt, that the command v> ould have been 
 equally forcible, if nothing more than the mere 
 treading upon a tuft of grass, had been interdicted . 
 because criminality depended not on the simple 
 action, but on the violation of that principle which 
 was the test of homage. 
 
 I am ready to allow, tliat, if this account Lad been 
 given, in the manner you represent it, and we had 
 been told, that man fell from his primitive rectitude, 
 without an adequate cause, you might, with some 
 propriety, have objected to the narration. The sa- 
 cred ^vriters, however, trace this calamity to a higher 
 source, than that of a mere serpent entering into a 
 conversation with Eve. The serpent was but an 
 instrument, through wbich an evil spirit exerted its 
 agency, to bring on the melanchol}- catastrophe, to 
 the truth of ^^hicb, the depravity of mankind bears 
 an awful testimony. Nor are we assured, that Eve 
 heard the serpent speak, without any surprise. The 
 silence of the historian furnishes bo proof that 
 
 * GcQ. ii. 1T.U 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 47 
 
 astonishment was not excited. The concise account 
 which we ha^ e in tlie Bible, of antediluvian events, 
 affords a presumptive evidence against your con- 
 clusion, without even granting a fair foundation for 
 the inference on have made. According to this 
 narration, a change of principles succeeded this fatal 
 action, which was followed b} a corruption of manners. 
 Human happiness was no longer sought in a union 
 with God ; but moral and natural evil, with all their 
 attendant effects and consequences, deformed the 
 ^vorks of creative power. Such is the Bible account 
 of the introduction of moral evil, and of human 
 misery. 
 
 That this statement, even setting aside all argu- 
 ments which may be drawn from facts, to prove its 
 certainty, and from authority, to establish its authen- 
 ticity, is entitled to more respect than that with 
 which you have treated it, few, I presume, will be 
 disposed to deny. And, placing it, exclusively, on the 
 groimd of rationality, I feel no hesitation in asserting, 
 that it has a fair3i* claim to credit, than any which 
 I have ever seen produced by the pen of infidelity. 
 If facts had not established the existence of moral 
 evil, with an evidence not to be resisted, you might, 
 with some probabilitj' of success, have treated the 
 account given by Moses, as fabulous ; but your re- 
 iecting liis narratioij, \vithout assigaing any thing, 
 that has the appearance of reason, for so doing, and 
 
48 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 without substituting any thing more plausible in its 
 stead, resembles the conduct of a man, who would 
 destroy my habitation, under a pretence that it was 
 not sufficiently elegant for a person of my dignity, 
 and then leare me, without shelter, exposed to the 
 inclement atmosphere. 
 
 As this account stands on the rationality of its ot^ti 
 evidence, and is supported by such facts as reason 
 must admit, namely, the real existence of moral evil, 
 it is not in the natm-e of true principles to banish 
 it from the Morld. Burlesque, assimiing the form 
 of reason, may, with the profligate and the ignorant, 
 prove successful, in deception, for a season ; but, th« 
 instant in which it is detected, it will be dismissed, 
 and the spell will be dissolved. 
 
 That the intellectual powers of man, are confined 
 within certain boundaries, is, I conceive, a truth, 
 which we must allow; and, if this be granted, we 
 cannot dcubt, that there may be many rational facts, 
 which we must be naturally incapable of compre- 
 hendiiig ; and this, not m.erely from a want of actual 
 information, but through the limitation of our facid- 
 ties. Under these circumstances, it is but reasonable, 
 that we should satisfy ourselves, before we dismiss 
 tliis memorial as fabulous, whether a more rational 
 account of the introduction of moral evil, than that 
 given by Moses, is within the reach of possibility. 
 
TO THOMAS PATVS. +5> 
 
 riiiit God is d-Ae to communicate, to intelligent 
 agents, an accurate knowledge of the real origin of" 
 moral e'» il, I will not presume to question ; but 
 w hether tiie physical origin of any tiling be commu- 
 nicable to man, unless his po\^ejs were to undergo 
 such changes as w ould place him among some more 
 exalted order of beings, is what I very much doubt. 
 To comprehend the origin of principles, and tho 
 nature of essences, may require intellectual energies, 
 BS far advanced above our sphere of knowledge, as ij 
 
 man is removed from the brute creation ; and this 
 may, perhaps, be included in those systems of philo- 
 sophy, which are peculiarly adapted for such exalted 
 siates of existence; and which, in our present con- 
 dition, can no more lie Avithiu our reach, than the 
 solar system can be rendered intelligible to an ele- 
 phant or an ape. To make man susceptible of such 
 iuperior kno\^ ledge, would be to raise him in the 
 scale of being, above that station in which God has }| 
 
 placed him ; and, possessed of these powers, he 
 would be no longer man, but some higher order of 
 intelligent nature, for which, perhaps, we want a 
 name. To these relative coiisideralions you seem to 
 have paid no attention; and, without having any 
 certainty, that a more intelligible account of the 
 introduction of moral evil, than that given by Moses, 
 is within the reach of pos.-ibility, you reject it with 
 disdain, and represent, as falralous, the cause he 
 assigns ; because his narration deviates from that 
 
 E 
 
50 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 standard, by which 3 ou reduce the conduct of 
 Omnipotence to a resemblance with earthly ana- 
 logies. 
 
 It is, however, an indisputable fact, that the moral 
 condition of man is considerably altered from what 
 it originally must have been. The first who com- 
 mitted moral evil, could not have been influenced 
 by bad example; because it did not then exist: 
 «ithough it is evident, that since that period, its fatal 
 influence has had but too much dominion over the 
 human race. Here, then, we have before us, au 
 inequality in the condition of men, for Avhich infi- 
 <lelity cannot account; but the fact itself destroys 
 your observation, by proving, that ihe road to God 
 is NOT 0}3eu to every man alike. The condition of 
 those who are influenced by bad example, and that 
 of those with whom it did not exist, is specifically 
 different ; and hence we may infer, that moral jus- 
 tice, as displayed in the varioiis branches of the 
 Divine economy, is not always to be measured by 
 the standard of finite conception. What we per- 
 ceive of moral justice, we can only ^iew, in relation 
 to human agency and action, within the hemisphere 
 of probationary observation. But how far the sa- 
 cred principle extends, and of what varieties iu 
 operation it is capable, before it approximates to- 
 wards injustice, are points not placed within the 
 liuman powers to determine. 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. ol 
 
 You further say, *' After Satan had triumphed over 
 " the creation, they should have sent him back ar/ain; 
 ** but, instead of this, they bribed him to stay, and 
 *' promised hitn all the Turks, all the Jews, nine- 
 *• tenths of the world besides, and Mahomet into the 
 '* bargain.'^ From what source this charge is de- 
 rived, I am at a loss to determine. The Bible, instead 
 of countenancing your assertion, unequivocally de- 
 clares, that " in every nation, he that feareth God, 
 and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."* 
 On the finally incorrigible, indeed, it denounces the 
 miseries of a future state ; but the righteous and the 
 wicked comprehend its grand divisions of mankind. 
 If, through the intlaeuce of bigotry, or an illiberal 
 spirit, individuals or parties may be found, avIio pro- 
 fess to believe the Bible, and yet sanction, by their 
 conduct, the sarcasm of your observation, I have no 
 objection that it should fall upon them with all its 
 force ; but this will not implicate the sacred sources 
 of the Christian religion. 
 
 You suggest, that '* after Satan had triumphed over 
 *' the creation, f//e^,"— meaning, I presume, " the 
 Christian mythologists," — " should have sent him 
 ** back again.^' To this, I would reply, that, whe- 
 ther the account be founded on truth or fiction, the 
 narrator could not have complied with your advice* 
 
 * Acts X. Sr>. 
 
52 REMARKS, ADDRtS&£I> 
 
 if he intended to preserve any consistency in Iiii^ 
 :iccoimt. If Satan had been sent back again, it 
 must have been either by man or God; for no other 
 aji,eney is introduced. It covdd not, however, have 
 been by the former ; for tliis would imply that man 
 liad accjuiied new energy from his fall, and had ob- 
 tained, through the loss of moral rectitude, a power 
 to send Satan back ; although, when it w as in full 
 ^ igour, it w as insuHicient to prevent his introduction 
 And, if it had been by the latter, God must have 
 interfered with human agency, in such a manner 
 as would have been inconsistent with the moral con- 
 stitution of creation. The " ni\ thologists," have, 
 iherefore, preserved a cousistenc}' in their account, 
 vhich the author of the " Age of Reason," has not 
 had the ingenuity to jecomniend. 
 
 In page 10, you speak of the enlarifement of 
 Satan, and of his ileiji cation-, and add, ''After /*/* 
 ** fall he becomes, hi) their account y omnipresent : he 
 " exists every where, at the same titue; and occupies 
 " the uhole innnensiiy of space." On these points, 
 fhe piinuuT subject ior our consideration is, whether 
 any thing, like this, is asserted in the Bible. This I 
 hesitate not to deny. On the contrary, we find a 
 pluiality of daemons asserted, such as, " My nan»e 
 is iegiou; for we are many."* And until you cuu 
 
 * Mark v, 9. 
 
TO THOMAS PAIXE. 03 
 
 ascertain with what velocity an evil spirit can trau - 
 port itself from one place to another, and determine 
 the extent of its influence, you can never decide 
 upon the number of daemons necessary to preserve 
 moral evil in its present state of existence. Of this 
 we are certain, that it extends its dominion over the 
 moral world ; and it is certainly a possible case, that, 
 the primitive fountain being once polluted, in tlie 
 manner the Scriptures inform us, the streams may 
 have acquired a germ of evil, which may per- 
 petuate its o'i\Ti continuance, and thus produce the 
 varied but fatal effects which we discover. I do 
 not contend that this is the fact. I only argue for 
 its possi])ility ; and when even this is admitted, 
 the necessity of Satan's omnipresence wholly disap- 
 pears. 
 
 Xor can I conceive, how the sacred historian?^, 
 whether we survey their observations separatelv or 
 collectively, suggest any ideas, that " the enlargement 
 of Satan was greater after his fall, than it was 
 before." The supposition is evidently founded on an 
 erroneous conception of the subject. We know 
 nothing of the dominion of Satan, prior to his fall, 
 so as to enable us to measure its extent. On this 
 point, the language of Scripture is bold and figu- 
 rative ; but, in every sentence, the ideas which are 
 conveyed, unite together to refute «your assertion. 
 The apostiophe of Isaiah,—** How art thou fallen 
 
 E 2 
 
54 REMARKS, ADDRESSEi? 
 
 from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning I llo^ 
 art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken 
 the nations!"* — suggests conceptions of vast power^ 
 and extensive, though undefined dominion ; and, in the 
 Revelation, the same ideas are again renewed, *' And 
 there was war in heaven : INIichael and his angels 
 fought against the dragon j and the dragon fought^ 
 and his angels, and prevailed not : neither was 
 their place found any more in heaven. And the 
 great dragon was cast out ; that old serpent, called 
 the Devil and Satan^ wliich deeeiveth the whol© 
 world : he was cast out into the earth, and his angels 
 were cast out Avith him."t Such are the accounts of 
 this event, which we gather from the Bible ; but I 
 Lave no more conception, that we can infer from 
 kence, that " the enlargement of Satan was greater 
 after his fall than it was before," than that the authors 
 of the Bible represent Satan as " occupying the 
 die whole immensity of space." Between the en- 
 tire dominion of this world, and the most limited 
 power in heaven, we have no means of measuring the 
 proportion; nor am I aware, that, in any of their 
 writings, the sacred authors haA e made the attempt. 
 
 Adverting to the influence, which the authors of 
 the Bible ascribe to Satan, to his dominion in the 
 Hioral world, and to the means Avhich God has 
 
 * I^aiab xiv. 12. t Rct. xii. 7—9. 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. " 55 
 
 instituted for the recovery of man, throngli tlie 
 medium of redemption, you more than intimate, that 
 the order of things is inverted,, and tliat '' they make 
 the transgressors triumph, and the Almighty fall." 
 You must be well aware, sir, that Christianity con- 
 nects this world with that which shall succeed it ; and 
 the whole system is founded upon this fimdamental 
 principle, that time can never be ultimately separated 
 from eternity. To form a proper estimate of this, 
 you should have recollected, what the Bible has in- 
 formed us, respecting a future state of existence ; and* 
 if this had been the case, I am inclined to think, 
 you would have found but little occasion to say, 
 that " they make the transgi'essors triumph, and the 
 Ahnighty faD." 
 
 The " exhibition of Satan on a cross," admitting 
 it to have been possible, might have inflicted punish- 
 ment on him as an offender ; but how this coidd have 
 made a restitution for his crime, in the seduction of 
 man, or have eradicated the malignant effects of 
 moral evil from the human soul, by no means ap- 
 pears. That Satan is doomed to sufler for his of- % 
 fences, the *' fable" uniformly asserts; but this can ' 
 never renovate human nature, and prepare it for 
 eternal glory. In our present state, we can have no 
 adequate comprehension of the whole economy of I 
 God: the concluding scenes lie beyond the grave; 
 
66 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 where justice and mercy will be fully unfolded, in 
 harmony with each other ; and the attributes of Deity 
 will shine, with a degree of lustre, which infidehty 
 shall be unable to tarnish or impeach. 
 
 In page 11, you inform us, with much affected 
 liberality, that '* credulity is not a crime." Xow, 
 admitting your observation to be founded on fact, 
 you cannot but allow, eren on your own principles, 
 that there is nothing criminal in beliering the Bible 
 to be the word of God; and it also follows, from 
 your own concessions, that our adoption of the prin- 
 ciples of infidelity is not essential to our future hap- 
 piness. I am far, however, from granting, that it is 
 a matter of indifference, whether we believe truth or 
 error; for, if faith in a Saviour be necessary to 
 salvation, then those v.ho reject it must have em- 
 braced a theory, which will be attended with the 
 most awfid consequences. That this is your situation, 
 and that you view the sacrifice of Christ with abhor- 
 rence and contempt, we cannot but perceive, from 
 the following passage : *' Can our gy-oss feelings be ex- 
 " cited by no other subject, than tragedy or suicide ? 
 *' or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, 
 ** that nothing can flatter it, but the sacrifice of the 
 " Creator ? " You must be sensible, that this pas- 
 sage contains no argument ; and, therefore, it may 
 be repelled in a strain similar to that in which it is 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 
 
 57 
 
 delivered. Is, then, I would aj^k, the arrogance and 
 presumption of man become so intolerable, that even 
 the conduct of Omnipotence shall be arraigned for 
 every action, that will not furnish him w ith all the 
 evidence that pride requires ? Shall man despise 
 overtures of mercy, even while conscious of his 
 guilt, because he happens to dishke the principles 
 upon which they are presented to him, and the 
 medium through which they are comnmnicated ? 
 Or. finally, shall the benevolence of God be de- 
 feated of its purposes, because man is too ungrateful 
 to acknowledge his obhgations, and too blind to 
 perceive the benefits, which heaven, out of com- 
 passion, confers ? — The dictates of conscience will 
 give to these questions an unsophisticated answer. 
 
 But, for the evils of which you complain, you 
 have provided u singular remedy. Many, however, 
 will think it too desperate, to be adopted Avithout 
 hesitation. To give stability to " staggering incre- 
 dulity," vou advise us to cut off, at one stroke, 
 ail that lias been held venerable and sacred for 
 ages; but, unfortunately, you have nothing to offer 
 in its stead, but a liberation from every restraint 
 on those unhallowed passions of our nature, which 
 would furnish a passport to e\ery vice. To remove 
 doubts, you teach us to disbelieve; to prornote the 
 interests of moral virtue, vou recommend the abo- 
 lition of every moral principle; and to awaken us 
 
•58 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 trom the delirium of isiiperstition, you administer an 
 opiate, which, while it cherishes the moral depravity 
 of tlie heart, strangles, in the birth, every pang of 
 conscientious remorse. 
 
 In the same page, you pass on to an examination 
 of " the books, called the Old and New Testament; " 
 but, pausing on the margin of your inquiry, you 
 ask, ** Who told iis they were the word of God?" 
 to which you answer, " Xobodu can tell ;" and hence 
 you conclude, that " they ?nust be false."' That 
 this is a legitimate inference, very few, I presume, 
 will have the hardihood to asserts If I were to 
 ask, AVho told us, that the History of Josephus, the 
 Epistles of Pliny, the Orations of Cicero, and the 
 Elements of Euclid, were all written by the authors 
 "v\ hose names they bear ? and should be answered, 
 " Nobody can tell J' would this falsify the testimony 
 of facts, which these books respectively contained I 
 Xo one, I think, would presume to make such an 
 assertion, unless the scepticism of hi^ mind coincided 
 ■v\ith the looseness of morals which your principles 
 unhappily inculcate. 
 
 In page 1*2, you say, ** These writings were col- 
 ^^ lected ; but it is tuicertain whether they have been 
 " altered, abridged, or dressed 2ip." It is obviou.^. 
 from hence, that you admit the prior existence of 
 the sacred writings, otherwise they could not hav»" 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 
 
 59 
 
 been collected ; and this destroys an insiiinatioii 
 Avhicli you elsewhere make, that '" they suit the 
 " yloomy genius of a monk, by whom, it is not 
 " improbable, they were written. " I think, you 
 cannot deny, tliat those, by whom they were col- 
 lected and exammed, thought them of a different 
 origin, otherwise they would never have foimd their 
 way into the world in their present state ; and, I 
 conceive, that their means of knowing could not 
 have been much inferior to vour own. 
 
 \ 
 
 But '* it is uncertain, whether they have been 
 *' altered, abridged, or dressed up." Now, admitting 
 this, it follows, on your own principles, that we 
 have no evidence whatever, of their being either 
 altered, abridged, or dressed up; and, consequently, 
 your charge is destitute of any real foundation. 
 And, as every principle of moral justice supposes 
 innocence till guilt is pioved, it follows, from your 
 own language, that the uncertainty of evidence against 
 their authenticity, tends to establish that reputation, 
 which it failed in attempting to overthrow. 
 
 Another charge is, that '* it was decided by vote, 
 '* which of thae books should be the word of God, 
 *' by some who called themselves by the general name 
 '• of the church ; and this is all ice know of the 
 ** matter" From the face of this quotation, it ap- 
 pears, that you do not accuse those who examined 
 
 i\ 
 
 ../- 
 
GO REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 these books, of voting wrong ; and it is not im- 
 probable, that they were called to this task by the 
 infidels of that da}', who had their hours, if not their 
 Age, of Reason, To decide on this question, with 
 impartiality, before the world, they examined the 
 evidence on which the authenticity of these books 
 rested ; and, according to your own statement, the 
 result was, that they thought it sufficienlly strong 
 in favour of the canonical books, to secure their 
 united suffrage and approbation. Had you been 
 aware of these consequences, I am inclined to 
 think, you would not have given such undesigned 
 supports to Christianity; nor would you, after 
 having thus informed us, that those who examined 
 the evidence decided \i\ favour of the Bible, have 
 left us under the impression, that ^' this is all ice 
 " know of the matter ^ 
 
 Having dismissed the external evidence, you next 
 appeal to that m hich is internal ; but before you call 
 your witnesses, permit me to repeat my question, and 
 ask. On what principle of equity or justice, can you 
 quote the sacred books for self-accusation, while you 
 forbid them to make any defence ? If the testis 
 monies, which may be adduced in their favour, must 
 be rejected, because they only amount to hearsay 
 evidence, on the same common principle, every 
 apparent inconsistency, v/hich you can discover, 
 must, of necessity, lose all its force. 
 
\ 
 
 TO THOMAS PAINE. 
 
 Gl 
 
 As 3'ou seem to despise the method of " establish- 
 ing the word of God by vote," I Avould ask, — How 
 is it possible, that vre, any more than our prede- 
 cessors, can otherwise embody the result of our 
 judgments ? What is every man's vote, but his 
 judgment expressed? The m^n, whom 3'ou condemn, 
 only acted upon the principle which you have 
 adopted. You examine the books, and, from the fan- 
 cied internal evidence which you discover, you reject 
 them as fabulous ; thus deciding against the Bible, 
 by your vote. But, surely, if the sacred books can- 
 not be estahUshed by this mode of procedure, neither 
 can they be condemjicd, on the same principle. 
 It, therefore, appears, that the men, who voted in 
 favour of their authenticity, only did what you, 
 without any consistency, at once repeat and condemn. 
 They examined, and voted in their favour ; you pro- 
 fess to examine, and you vote against them ; and 
 consequently, they are entitled to equal credit v itk 
 yourself. 
 
 Suppose if I, from reading the *' Age of Reason,*' 
 should suspect the authenticity of the Bible ; and, hi 
 order to examine its externa,! and internal evidence, 
 I should call to my assistance a number of friends, in 
 whose judgment I could place confidence. If the 
 evidence should result in avour of the doubtful 
 points, would it follow, that the Bible must be false ; 
 because fifty or a himdred men, of piety and learning, 
 
 F 
 
62 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 th ought it true ? I should rather conceive, that this 
 would afford, at least, a presumptive evidence in its 
 favour ; especially, if we lived in an age, when every 
 means of obtaining the most authentic information of 
 its truth or falsehood, was in our power. Unanimous 
 vote is nothing more than the expression of unanimous 
 opinion ; and, on books, of which you admit the 
 previous existence, I am at a loss to know, how 
 collective judgment could be taken in any other 
 way. 
 
 You say, in the same page, " Revelation can- 
 *' not he applied to any thing done upon earth, of 
 ** li'hich man is either the actor or the witness ; con- 
 " sequently, all the historical and anecdotal parts of 
 " the Bible, ivhich are almost the ii'hole of it, are 
 " not within the compass of the icord Revelation ; 
 " a7id, therefore, are not the word of God.^' Had 
 you submitted this to the vote, I am inclined to 
 think, that it would never have been published to 
 the world ; because it is a decision, which is not only 
 without proof, but is refuted by the united testimony 
 of facts, and is contradicted by your own. assertion, 
 where you tell us, that " Revelation is a communi- 
 '* cation of any thing, to any person, of what he did 
 " not know before.^' 
 
 It has been the fate of many, to be deluded by 
 the appearance of popular reasonings, without once 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 
 
 &3 
 
 suspecting tlie error which lay at the foundation of 
 the seductive art ; and ^^ ithout considering the incon- 
 sistencies they indiscreetly admitted. I grant, that 
 nothing can be a revelation to that person, who is 
 the actor of the thing said to be revealed ; but though 
 it cannot be a revelation to that identical person, 
 vet it may be a revelation to all the world besides. 
 Whatever was said by Jesus Christ, to those who 
 wrote the accoimt, was a revelation to them; be- 
 cause, on your own principles, " Revelation is a 
 commimication of any thing, to any person, of what 
 he did not know before ; " and, consequently, as 
 many new principles of moral action, as well as new 
 doctrines, of which they were previously ignorant, 
 were imparted by him, these, to them, were a 
 revelation. 
 
 Revelation may be visual as well as mental. A 
 real miracle, performed in the sight of spectators, 
 w ould be, to them, a revelation ; because it w ould 
 be the communication of something which they knew 
 not before ; but, being transmitted through the or- 
 gans of vision, it would be a visual revelation. 
 
 Does not the material universe display the wisdom 
 and power of God? Yet the planetary worlds, con- 
 veying to our senses and miderstandings, what we 
 knew not before, fall within }our definition of a 
 revelation. Although man is the witness of these 
 
4^4 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 stupendous realities, does this, or any siicli evi- 
 dence, destroy the identity of any revelation ? Cer- 
 tfiiniy not ; beeause it is the very medium through 
 vfhich \\ e are assured of its certainty. But a direct 
 communkration of any thing to tlie imderstanding, 
 nhich %ve knew not before, is an intellectual reve- 
 lation; and, cansequently, whatever the Bible has 
 thus conveyed, must of necessity be, to us, a reve- 
 lation : and, were I to conclude like yourself, I 
 might add, — and^ conseqneiLtly^ is the word of God ; 
 itut I will only say, — and, thei'ej'ore, your premises 
 are false. 
 
 Let us suppose the case of a man who was bom 
 blind. He can have nothing but oral testimony of 
 such things as are visible to others. Does it therefore 
 follow, that, to him, the luminaries of heaven do not 
 exist, and, consequently, demonstrate nothing of the 
 power and Misdom of God? No: the demonstration 
 still exists, by an intellectual communication froDi 
 others ; and this, to him, is a revelation. What is 
 history, but a revelation of facts, though man is the 
 1 ecorder, the witness, the auditor, and oftentimes the 
 cause ? View yom' premises however I may, they 
 are demonstrably false ; ami, consequently, what you 
 draw from them must fall to the gromid. 
 
 You finish your observations, in page IS, by say- 
 fng, " We ovf/kt to feel shame at ealiinfj aiich pultrif 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 65 
 
 *• Stories the word of God." You affect to speak 
 
 this out of veneration to the Ahnight}', who governs 
 
 the immense whole ; hut I presume you are more of 
 
 a philosopher, than to conceive, that any thing he- | | 
 
 comes either *' paltry" or contemptihle, when applied )■ 
 
 to liim. Height, depth, breadth, length, greatness, ^ ;. 
 
 meamiess, grandeur, and poverty, with a variety of ; 
 
 such relati^ e terms and ideas, are all local, and con- / ' 
 
 fined to created tilings ; and, consequently, they are ' 
 
 not applicable to God. Xow, if these terms and 
 
 ideas are thus rendered totally inapplicable, the 
 
 paltriness or meanness, of any story, can never fur- j 
 
 nish an objection against its divine origin. 
 
 What would you, as a philosopher, say, were yo^l 1 
 
 to hear a man making such assertions as the fol- ( 
 
 lowing: — " When we contemplate the extent of 
 '* creation, and the infinite power and \\ isdom of 
 ** Him, who conducts the amazing whole. Me ought 
 " to feel shame, at calling such paltry actions, as the 
 *' creation of spiders, toads, and serpents, the work 
 *' of God" ? Would you not despise such objections, 
 and treat them with the contempt they deserved? 
 These observations will apply to your OAvn case. 
 Is meanness or paltriness applicable to God ? ^yhy 
 not riches or poverty, strength or weakness, age 
 or youth? Whatever is infinite can admit of no de- 
 gree of comparison; but paltnness is a degree of 
 comparison, and is, therefore, inappHcable to God ; 
 
 F 2 
 
66 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 consequently, all you infer, from hence, falls with 
 the foundation. 
 
 You further tell us, that " the whole account is 
 " traditionary J^ The truth of tliis assertion,^ will 
 depend, in no small degree, upon the definition of 
 the term. But, if Avhat you assert, were granted, I 
 cannot perceive, how this would falsify the account. 
 Jf the supposed facts, contained in the Bible, be 
 traditionary, and are, therefore, false, there is no 
 historical account in existence, that will not be im- 
 plicated in the common charge; and, if this be 
 admitted, all moral and historical certainty, must, at 
 one stroke, be banished from the world. 
 
 In the same page you say, " Whenever we read 
 *' ike ohicene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the 
 •' cruel and iortv.roiis exectttions, with which more 
 " than half the Bible is filled, it would be more 
 " consistent, that ice called it the word of a dcemon, 
 '• than the word of God: it is a history of wicked- 
 *' ness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize 
 ''mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, 
 '• as I detest every thing that is cruel.'" As you 
 ^ive no example, of the above description, I may 
 justly doubt the truth of your allegation ; however^ 
 I will venture to assert, that every story of obscenity 
 and wickedness, recorded in the Bible, is exhibited 
 there, not to induce imitation, but abhorrence. 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 
 
 67 
 
 I believe, the maddest enthusiast that ever lived, 
 never thought of caUing every word in the Bible, 
 the word of God. Many parts of the sacred ^^ riting& 
 record the speeches and actions of wicked men 
 and daemons ; and they are handed down to us, to 
 excite our disapprobation, and to instruct us to 
 take warnmg by the awful examples they present. 
 Acts of debauchery and obscenity are objects of 
 Bible detestation, as well as yours ; and what you 
 call '* torturous executions " are frequently inflicted, 
 as punishments for those deeds of criminality, with 
 which you most unjustly reproach the Bible. 
 
 Whoever is acquainted vnXYi the contents of the 
 Bible, must allow, that a prohibition of murder, 
 theft, adultery, idolatry, and every species of wicked- 
 ness, and an inculcation of benevolence, resigna- 
 tion, and every moral virtue, are enrolled among 
 its permanent principles ; and no man can suppose, 
 that these prohibitions and injunctions, are calculated 
 •' to corrupt and brutahze mankmd/' Instances of 
 deviation from them, I readily allow, may be found, 
 in many parts ; but you must be well aware, that 
 the causes of these deviations are frequently assigned. 
 In numerous cases, the record of the act is accom- 
 panied with a development of character, which the 
 writers introduce to condemn. On some occasions, 
 man appears before us, as a mere instrument in the 
 hand of God, to execute the decisions of his justice 
 
68 REMARKS, ADDRESSEI> 
 
 upon the guilty; and on others, the simple fact is 
 mentioned, while the reasons for it, together with 
 its causes and consequences, are concealed from 
 Imman ohservation. Xow if, under any of these, 
 or similar circumstances, an ambiguous expression, 
 or inexplicable fact, should appear before us, is it 
 consonant Anth reason, or with common justice, to 
 give to either an interpretation, in direct opposition 
 to those fundamental principles which characterize 
 the sacred volimie ? To this question, I think, 
 there can be but one reply ; and I should conceive, 
 that the " Age of Reason" ought to bear another 
 name, if its principles would lead its readers to 
 decide in your favour. 
 
 In the natural, and in the moral world, we fre- 
 quently perceive effects Avithout their causes, and 
 causes separated from their effects and consequences ; 
 and if, on numerous occasions, our judgments were 
 to be formed, on the mere insulated fact which 
 appears, we should, according to your mode of 
 reasoning, be led to conclude, that the natural m orld 
 was governed by chance; and tliat, in the moral 
 department, justice and compassion had been ex- 
 cluded from the economy of heaven. Shall ^^e 
 infer, that God has ^Aithdrawn his dominion from 
 the works of natiu'e, because Port Koval and Lisbon 
 were ingulphed by earthquakes; — because Lima was 
 destroyed by a similar deviation from the common 
 

 TO THOMAS PAINE. 69 
 
 course of iliings ; — because Herculaneum and Pom- 
 peii were overwhelmed with a fiery inuudation; — 
 or because Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, were swal- 
 lowed by the yawning earth ? Shall we conclude, 
 that God has abandoned the moral government of 
 the world, because the wicked triumph in prosperity, 
 and virtue languishes in distress ? That man would 
 be more deserving our pity, than our envy or imi- 
 tation, who woidd draw a conclusion so absurd. 
 Allow to Revelation the same exceptions, which 
 the economy of God, in the natmal and moral 
 world, requires, and it demands no other vindi- 
 cation. 
 
 Adverting to the term prophecy, you seem soli- 
 citous to give it a meaning, that shall not include a 
 prediction of future events. In page 14, you inform 
 us, that *' the woi'd prophecy meant, the art of making 
 *' jjoetry.^^ AVithout inquiring whether this be time 
 or false, I perceive nothing, that can be inferred 
 from hence, in your favour, even though we allow 
 all for v>hich you contend. Is the Bible false, 
 because the word prophecy meant poetry ? What, 
 though the Bible furnishes no word for a poet, an 
 astronomer, or a thousand characters in life, will 
 this furnish any evidence, that it is a compound of 
 fraud and falsehood ? It is not in the nature of a 
 connnon absurdity, to rival a supposition so replet(^ 
 vilh extravagance. 
 
 \ 
 i 
 
70 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 It is somewhat curious to obsei've, that, aftef 
 defining the word prophet to mean poet, you should 
 retain an explanation which you will not allow, and 
 set aside that for which you contend ; and then 
 argue against the consequences of the former, as 
 though you Avere conscious, that your own definition 
 was erroneous. If those, whom we denominate 
 prophets, have professedly delivered predictions,, 
 why do you argue that they are only poets ? and 
 if they are only poets, on what ground can you 
 pretend to invalidate their predictions? You seem 
 to have assumed it as a fact, that, if they are poets, 
 they cannot be prophets, without once suspecting, 
 that the two characters are perfectly compatible 
 with each other. 
 
 That Isaiah wrote his predictions in the style and 
 manner of poetry, is admitted ; but it is incumbent 
 on you to prove, that he has obtained the name of 
 prophet, from his poetry, rather than from his pre- 
 dictions. When, or in what age of the world, did 
 the corruption of the name take place? That the 
 JcAVS always did, and still do, denominate him from 
 his predictions, is an unquestionable fact ; and, from 
 his predictions, they form their expectation of a 
 coming Messiah : and, in this case, it must be ad- 
 mitted, that they are the best living witnesses now 
 extant. That he was a poet, I do not deny ; but 
 it rests on you to prove, that he was nothing else. 
 
eT^ 
 
 TO THOMAS PAINE. 
 
 "^l 
 
 You say, that *' Deborah and Barak were called 
 *' prophets, because they composed a poem ichich bears 
 " their name.'^ Can j^ou prove this ? It is more 
 probable, they were so denominated from their pre- 
 dictions ; though these predictions were of a local 
 nature, and do not now exist; being accomplished, 
 perhaps, before they composed that poem, which 
 bears their names. " David was ranked among the 
 *' prophets, because he was a musicianJ^ Is this a 
 proof that he predicted nothing ? However, if you 
 can prove that he was a poet, I can prove that he 
 was a prophet; and, to verify my assertion, I refer 
 to the twenty-second psalm : and, between us both, 
 we shall prove, that the two characters are not in- 
 compatible with one another. Suppose the name of 
 Alexander Pope, should be handed down to poste- 
 rity, when nothing but his letters were extant ; woiUd 
 the referring to his letters prove, that he was no poet, 
 but only a letter-^viiter ? But, if some of his poeti- 
 cal works were handed doAvn with his letters, would 
 not this prove, that he was both a letter-writer and 
 a poet ? I think this would be satisfactory evidence, 
 to any impartial judge, that he derived his charac- 
 ter of poet from his poetry, and not from his letters. 
 
 u 
 
 In page 16, you say, " They tell us of the greater 
 *' and lesser prophets : they might as well tell us about 
 " the greater and lesser GodJ' To this I answer, 
 Though there can be no degrees, in the quality of 
 
72 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 prediction, j-et there may be, in the quantity of what 
 the prophets predicted; and, agreeably to this, we 
 find them denominated, from the number of their 
 predictions, and the magnitude of the works they 
 hare left behind. Is not Voltaire a greater histo- 
 rian than Thomas Paine? One Mrote the Age of 
 Louis XIV, and the other the Age of Reason. 
 Voltaire m rote the Life of Charles XII, of Sweden ; 
 Paine, the Destruction of the Bastile. The com- 
 parison arose not from the trutli or falsehood of 
 what either asserted, but from their works being 
 more or less voluminous. Besides, these terms are 
 not to be found in the Bible, but are added for the 
 sake of perspicuity. Xotwithstanding tliis, you add, 
 in the same page, '' Tlic axe goes to the root at once: 
 '" the meaning of the word has been mistaken; and, 
 *' consequently, all the inferences, ichich have been 
 *' drawn from thence, are not worth differing about. ^^ 
 If poetry were forbidden to tell the truth, then your 
 *' axe'' would go, indeed, " to the root at once ;" but 
 the absurdity of your conclusion, needs only to be 
 seen, to be despised. In plain terms, it amounts to 
 this: — Certain men are said to have written cer- 
 tain things, said to be predictions ; but these men 
 were poets ; therefore, w'hat they wrote must be false : 
 — the axe goes to the root at once. Can you find 
 any thing so absurd in all the Bible ? Xo man, I 
 think, can doubt, that the characters are perfectly 
 compatible with one anotlier : there is nothing that 
 
TO THOMAS PAlNt. 7S 
 
 lunders. Therefore, *' the axe goes to the root at 
 once ;" and your premises and conclusion are both 
 proved to be false. 
 
 You then assert that, ^' the word of God cannot 
 " exist in any human or written language." How 
 does this agree with what you say in page 5, namely, 
 ** No one xcill deny or di.qmte the power of the Al- 
 ** mighty, to make such a communication if he please"? 
 Which of these two expressions are we to believe ? 
 I cannot credit both. I shall, therefore, adhere to 
 what you have said in page 5, and pass the other by. 
 
 You finish your remarks upon the Old Testa- 
 ment, with utterly disclaiming the Bible as a rule 
 of faith, '* if it were to excels in purity of ideas and 
 " expiession, all the books now extant in the world." 
 This is, surely, paying a great compliment to your 
 own abilities ; while it discovers au obstinacj" of dis* 
 position, M hich bids defiance to conviction ; even 
 if brought rationally to your view. 
 
 With a mind thus influenced by prejudice, you 
 begin your attack on the Xew Testament; not like 
 an impartial inquirer after truth, but with a disposi- 
 tion as easily conceived as mentioned. You seem to 
 prowl through the sacred writings, under the direc- 
 tion of that mental ferocity, which the gospel you 
 despise was designed to expel; and, tearing from 
 
 G 
 
 ii 
 
 \ 
 
 •^ / 
 
74 REMARKS, ADDRLSSED 
 
 their connexion, tlie passages v, iiicii fall under your 
 o])seivatio]is, and misrepresenting tlie principles on 
 %vbich vou animadvert, von triumpli in the dexteritv 
 of voiir own exploits, and upbraid the sacred an- 
 thors with the distortions of vour o>vn ingenuitv. 
 Even the apparent advantages, which they seem to 
 aiibrd you, furnish no contemptiijle evidence, in fa- 
 Tour of their authenticity. A design to impose upon 
 mankind, would have taught their authors to shut 
 those avenues, through which you have entered ; and 
 have obliged you to look deeper than the surface, to 
 discover the fraud. 
 
 Tlie Bible, like many of the works of natm'e, 
 appears to the greatest disadvantage to the most 
 suoerficial beholder. But, when we exclude such 
 vseculav principles as are apt to bewilder and deceive ; 
 — when we examine its essential doctrmes, — the 
 proportion of all its parts,— the pleasing harmony 
 arising from the whole, — and the general benefit re- 
 sulting therefrom ; there is such a coincidence with 
 human reason, abstracted from all its grossness, that 
 nothing can justify even you, from wiuiholding your 
 admiration and assent, but your ignorance of those 
 doctrines, which are, at present, the objects of your 
 contempt and scorn. So benign are its precepts, so 
 disinterested its ofiers, and so extensive its bene- 
 fits, that, CA'en in the arcana of Deism, there is not 
 a virtue or moral duty, which Christianity does 
 
TO THOMAS PAIXE. 
 
 75 
 
 not recommend and enforce. Instead of discardins; 
 reason, as you insinuate, it encourages its operations; 
 and it appeals to reason, as the arbiter of its fate. It 
 is by reason that we discover, v.here reason is in- 
 competent to the task assi2:ned ; and it is by reason 
 that we understand, when it must be suspended, and 
 vxhen called into action. 
 
 ** Theij tell ?/s," you say, '' of the Xew Tesfa- 
 *' ment ; as if there could be two tvills of the Creator.'' 
 Christianity, sir, no v.here asserts any such thing; 
 and all that can, or ought to be understood by the 
 expression, is, that it is a new manifestation of that 
 will which was known hundreds of years before. 
 This no more charges God with mutaJjility, than the 
 alternate succession of dav and nischt. M'hat abso- 
 lute immutability is, as it respects God, we know not. 
 Mutability, undoubtedly, implies imperfection; and, 
 therefore, in that sense, God cannot change. Never- 
 theless, if every minute alteration in the Divine 
 economy, charges him with mutability, we must, 
 necessarily, omit attributing to God any kind of 
 action; and, then, he cannot be the Creator. But, 
 if God be the Creator, there must have been a 
 period when he did not create ; and the transition, 
 from a pure negation of things to a positive creation, 
 would, with us, charge any finite being v.ith muta- 
 bilit\-, and, consefjuently, with imperfection. But, as 
 neither mutability nor imperfection can be charged 
 
 J 
 
 s-^ 
 
Vi REMARKS. ADDRESSED 
 
 upon God, it mubt follow, that such transitions as are 
 inseparable from liis actions^ are not the denaniinators 
 of nnitability. I am inclined to think, that a suc- 
 cession of action, is perfectly compatible with immu- 
 tability, in God. We behold much of this, among 
 the things "\\ ith which we are acquainted ; and, if 
 these apparent contradictions are reconcileable by 
 our limited capacities, how much more so must they 
 be, to the Creator of these capacities. 
 
 Unless you contend, that every thing is eternal, 
 } ou must admit, that there was a period when things 
 were not, and when God willed not their existence ; 
 but the human race exists ; therefore God willed it. 
 The iumiutability of his nature, may be in the pro- 
 motion — as it respects us— of human happiness, 
 tonsit^tent with intellectual freedom. Isow, admitting 
 this to be the tase, it follows, that God has a right 
 to elect his own means, for the accomplishment of 
 that end ; and, proritled that end be kept in view^ 
 every action, which tends to that point, however 
 various these actions may appear, cannot afi'ect the 
 permanent principles of his immutability. It must 
 be admitted, that God is unchangeably just, perfect, 
 and good; but it does not follow from hence, that 
 God must be invariably attached to the same identical 
 place, person, means, or thing. No : it follows, that 
 God must, invariably, be a lover of justice, perfec- 
 tion, and goodness, wherever these principles aix 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 77 
 
 found. Besides, whatever immutability we may 
 ascribe to God, \ve know, by uniform experience, 
 that it does not attacli itself to us. Is the sun 
 changeable, because we do not always perceive it 
 shining ? or, does it cease to shine, because clouds 
 intercept its rays ? If God were to change, as we 
 do, the eilect would be, an annihilation of ail his 
 attributes. It is on the idea suggested above, that PI 
 
 we can rationally account for the apparent mutabilit}'" 
 of God, in the natural and moral world. Variety ' 
 
 in his works, implies variety in his actions. But, * 
 
 since immutability of nature must be predicated of 
 him, and this variety in his v/orks cannot be denied,. 
 it follows, that diversity of action must be per- 
 fectly consistent with absolute immutai)ility of 
 natui-e, although the mamier may surpass our com- 
 prehension. 
 
 That the same principles are preserved in tlie 
 New Testament, m hich were displayed in the Old, j 
 
 is discoverable, from the frequent appeals wliich are ' 
 
 made thereto, by Jesus Christ and his Apostles ; and 
 the only difference between tVem is, that the Old 
 Testament envelopes in shades, what the New Testa- 
 ment reveals without them. But, it seems to be, 
 invariably, the object of the Bible, to promote the 
 happiness of the human race, consistent with human 
 Ireedom ; and to make that happiness depend upon 
 a union with God, and works of righteousness. 
 
 G 2 
 
1f8 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 You say, page 17, ** Had it been the object or 
 *• intention of Jesus Christ, to establish a new religion^ 
 " he would, undoubtedly , have written, or procured 
 *' it to be written, by othei's, during his life." Was 
 the thiug possible ? Do not you know, that a great 
 part of the Christian system, depended upon his 
 death ? How then could he -wiite it, unless he 
 were to rise from the dead, for that purpose ? His 
 resurrection you deny ; and his death being one 
 of the principles on which the system is founded, 
 it became necessary, to the existence of that sys- 
 tem. He could not, therefore, have written, 
 ilnring his life, an account of that system and 
 those transactions, which were not complete till 
 after his crucifixion. 
 
 In the same page you say, " Moses was a found- 
 " ling, Mahomet was a mule-driver, and Jesus Christ 
 ** icas born in a stable." This contains no argument. 
 The meanness of his birth, furnishes no proof against 
 the divinity of his person or mission ; and I con- 
 ceive, that this comparison can only be made, to 
 counteract that virtuous and philanthrophic cha- 
 racter, which you had given him before. 
 
 In page 18, you tell us, ** He did not intend to be 
 '" apprehended ; and, consequently y did not intend to 
 " be crucijied.'^ Whatever you may think of the 
 subject, it is a fact, resthig on the same e^ideuce 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 
 
 19 
 
 on wliich you found this charge of pusillanimity, tliat 
 he said, ** For this cause came I into the Avorld."* 
 If he knew it, he must have expected it ; and that 
 he did so, is evident, from his saying, " He that 
 betrayeth me is at hand,"t and, " The son of man 
 shall be dehvered, — and they shall kill him."t 
 Many such passages might be produced from the 
 Bible ; but I should not have had recourse to 
 them, had not you shown me the example. 
 
 You further observe, ** Crucifxion, or any other 
 *' particular manner of dying, made no part of the 
 *' sentence Adam was to suffer; andy consequently, 
 " on their own tactics, it could make no part of the 
 ** sentence Christ was to suffer, in the room of Adam J^ 
 Vou might have started this objection, against any 
 mode of dying whatever ; and, if he had died of a 
 fever, you might have asked. Why was he not 
 crucified ? Christianity no where asserts crucifixion 
 to be necessary, in itself, but only death ; and, if so, 
 crucifixion would do as well as any other. But tliis 
 appears to be the manner predicted, in the Old 
 Testament and the New, before his death took 
 place. Hence, we read, ** He was numbered with 
 the transgressors; "§ ** They pierced my hands and 
 my feet ; " || ** So must the Son of man be lifted 
 up." H These, with many other passages in the Bible, 
 
 j 
 
 « John xTiii. 37. % ^I^rk x. 33, 34. |1 P.alm ixii. 16^ 
 f Mark iiv. 42. ^ Isaiah Uii. 12. 1 John iiu 14. 
 
80 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 denoted the maimer of dying, wliicli actually came 
 to pass. In order to the accomplishment of pre- 
 dictions, tliis mode of death was, therefore, neces- 
 sary ; and its taking place has deprived you of 
 many objections, of which you cannot now avail 
 yourself. 
 
 In the same page yon say, " Every thing in this 
 " strange system, is the reverse of xchat it ought to 
 ** be : it is the reverse of truth.''' I believe you have 
 not yet produced any one expression from the Bible, 
 that approaches so nearly to the reverse of truth, 
 as what you now assert; but, as ii is merely an 
 assertion, I bid it adieu. 
 
 After exposing, with justice, tlie base customs of 
 degenerate times, — ** purgatory, selling of pai*dons, 
 dispensations, indulgences, ^c.," you add, page 19, 
 *' These things derive their origin from the paroxysm 
 *' of the crucifixion^ und the theory deduced therefrom." 
 You here argue, I perceive, against what you do 
 not understand. You create premises, to suit your 
 own conclusion ; and, chargicg on Chiistianity, tbe 
 corruptions and degenerac}^ of those who have de- 
 serted from its principles, attempt to retort upon 
 those principles, the very crimes they were designed 
 to prevent. How you can conceive, that purgatory, 
 dispensations, pardons, indulgences, &c., are deduced 
 from "the paroxysm, of the crucifixion, or the theory 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. Bl 
 
 deduced therefrom," I know not. There is not a more 
 prominent feature in all the Bible, than the declara- 
 tion of the imperfection of human nature ; and how, 
 as a philosopher, you can conceive, that an imperfect 
 being can merit any thing from a perfect being, such 
 as God is, when that imperfection is a departure 
 from duty, is a point which I do not understand. 
 Genuine merit, in all our relations to God, can only 
 consist in something which justice cannot demand 
 as a duty. Such is the merit of Christ. But 
 man does not perform his duty; and, consequently, ji 
 
 he cannot merit any thins: from God. 
 
 In page 20, you say, '* Jloral justice cannot take 
 *' the innocent for the guilty, even if the innocent 
 '* iL'ere to offer itself: to suppose justice to do this, 
 '' is to destroy the principle of its existence, which 
 '* is the thing itself ; it is then no longer justice, 
 " it is indiscriminate revenged* Before this question 
 can be decided, we must inquire. What is moral 
 justice, as it applies to God ? That it must be some- 
 thing difl'erent with him, from Mhat it is with us, 
 will appear from this consideration, — God can, when, 
 how, or where he pleases, deprive men of their lives, 
 without any visible cause for such actions ; yet God, 
 notwithstanding this, is morally just in all his ways. 
 Apply this to man ; we cannot, consistently with 
 moral justice, deprire men of their hres, without a 
 previous forfeiture of tlie same to moral justice. 
 
 »1 
 
B2 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 Unless the cause of death, with us, be equal to the 
 death inflicted, the act is injustice, and the death 
 assassination and murder; but God cannot commit 
 murder ; therefore the deprivation of life, of any of 
 his creatures, by him, must not only be reconcileable 
 with justice, but founded on its rery principles and 
 nature. Neither can God be ^ided by the same 
 laws, nor actuated by the same motives, with which 
 we are. To talk of laws, and apply them both to 
 God and man, is derogatory to his nature, for the 
 reasons assigned above ; and that, which derogates 
 from God, cannot be applied to him. The rules, 
 which regulate his ways and conduct, in the economy 
 of things, are such as we know little of ; and what 
 is justice with God, will, in many cases, be injustice 
 with us. It is a principle, which nmst be admitted, 
 that the same power, which has a right to establish 
 a law, must have a right to repeal that law ; but God 
 had a morally just right to establish, both the laws 
 of nature, and the laws of his word ; therefore, he 
 has the same morally just right to suspend, or finally 
 repeal, either. 
 
 Nor does the exercise of this right, charge him 
 with mutability ; for, if the conduct of God invariably 
 tends to promote human happmess, consistently with 
 the freedom of man, his immutability must remain 
 entire, while tliat end is kept in view. The mutability 
 of man renders a chansre of means in God absolute! v 
 
TO THOxMAS PAINE. 
 
 83 
 
 •necessary, in order to preserve the stability of liis 
 oi igiiial purposes : for a uniform application of the 
 same measures, through all the vicissitudes of human 
 instability, instead of uniformly tending towards hu- 
 man happiness, nuist tend, in many instances, to the 
 completion of human misery: and, in this case, God 
 might be justly charged with mutability, in deserting 
 those purposes and designs which he once promoted. 
 But, in all the apparent variations which we discover, 
 in the moral, as well as the natural world, he is no 
 more chargeable with mutability, than the mariner, 
 who alters his course and shifts his sails, through the 
 progress of his voyage, to ari'ive at the port of his 
 destination. 
 
 1 
 
 These things being premised, the question is, whe- 
 ther God can so far accept a vicarious sacrifice, in 
 the person of the innocent, as to permit his mercy 
 to interfere in the behalf of the guilty. The question 
 is not, in the present case, whether moral justice can 
 accept the innocent for the guilty ; but, whether God, 
 by receiving, in sufi'ering, an equivalent for the of- 
 fence committed, can, on a principle of mercy, dis- 
 charge the guilty ; and do this, as it relates to himself, 
 consistently with the rectitude and justice of his 
 nature. 
 
 As salvation is uniformly ascribed, in the Bible, 
 to mercy, the question simply is, whether God can 
 
84 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 possibly shew mercy, without being unjust. In the 
 nature of things, justice cannot shew mercy ; for if 
 any act be of justice, it is no longer of mercy ; never- 
 theless, mercy, when exercised, must be so consistent 
 with justice, that it cannot be unjust. Now% admit- 
 ting the existence of moral evil in man, and the 
 existence of moral justice in God, it follows, that 
 these cannot meet together, without destroying 
 human happiness; because the two principles are 
 incompatible with each other. To destroy this incom- 
 patibility, either moral evil or moral justice must 
 cease. It cannot be moral justice ; therefore, it 
 must be moral evil. But, admitting that moral evil 
 could be extracted from the human mind, without 
 any expiation, still, the turpitude of those actions, 
 which resulted from the evil principle, while it pre- 
 dominated, being a positive insult offered to moral 
 justice, necessarily requires an expiation, in order 
 to its annihilation. This expiation must, in order 
 to be available, be abstracted from all evil ; but, all 
 mankind being infected by evil, no one, among the 
 human race, was adequate to the task. It must then 
 follow, that some other substitute must be found ; 
 and we find every necessary quahfication concen- 
 trated in the person of Jesus Christ. 
 
 That moral justice is obligatory on man, must be 
 admitted; and then it must follow, that every de- 
 viation from that principle, subjects to punishment; 
 
I 
 
 TO THOMAS PAINK. 85 
 
 tliis is evident, from our standing in need of mercy ; ^ 
 
 and, if justice bus an additional claim upon erery of- 1 ' 
 
 fender, it must also follow, that this claim cannot he 
 
 relinquished without an expiation ; to suppose other- I 
 
 wise, is to reduce justice to an indiscriminate caprice. 
 
 This claim must be cancelled, either by man or God. 
 
 If by man, it destroys every idea of future happiness; 
 
 if by God, it nmst be, by accepting the innocent for 
 
 the guilty. But, as the hope of future happiness is 
 
 not destroyed, the claim must be cancelled by God ; 
 
 and, consequently, it must be by his accepting the 11 
 
 innocent in the stead of the guilty. 
 
 Nor can justice accept of an offerino: made by one 
 guilty person in the behalf of another ; for, wherever 
 guilt is found, it entitles its possessor to punishment; i 
 
 and punishment cannot have any thing in it merito- 
 rious. Xothing but merit can be available for the 
 guilty ; and, therefore, guilt must be expiated b}' in- 
 nocence ; w hich innocence must be so far accepted by 
 commutative justice, as to permit mercy to operate iu 
 the behalf of the guilty. Finally, if we allow our- 
 selves to be guilty, and God to be just, and yet hope 
 for happiness from him, it must be admitted, that he 
 can accept the innocent in the room of the guilty; 
 and, that he does, in mercy, discharge them, and 
 render them capable of happiness, through the efli- 
 cacy of suffering innocence. And, if we grant 
 mercy to exist with God, it must be_, to entitle those 
 
 H 
 
 i: 
 
8G REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 Avbo are the objects of it, to those favours, to which, 
 through justice, they can have no claim.* 
 
 You a^-k, page 21., *' How coidd Christ make knoivn 
 " any thing to oil nations ? He could speak hut one 
 " langtiage, which was Hehreii:" I answer, — Christi- 
 anity uniformly asserts its blessings to be of 
 
 a 
 
 spiritual and an intellectual nature ; and, if so, it must 
 follow, that they are capable of being communicated 
 accordingly. To be convinced that its Author can 
 make such a communication, you need only to appeal 
 to his power ; and to assure yourself of his willingness, 
 you have only to considt his love. This is the doc- 
 trine of the Bible. How astonishing it is, that any 
 person, capable of acknowledging, from rational con- 
 viction, these principles, should yet deny the effects 
 which necessarily result from them. The blessings 
 promised in the Bible, are no more confined to the 
 book which records them, than the benefits of salu- 
 tary laws are confined to the statute-book, v.hich 
 contains tlieir precepts. God is just in the distri- 
 bution of his favours ; and he expects improvements, 
 corresponding witli the opportunities which he has 
 afforded. It is in the spiritual communications of 
 
 * It is impossible for modern philosophy rationally to account 
 for the existence of mercy in God, or to reconcile mercy with 
 justice in liim, on any other principles than tho^e of the 
 Christian system. 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 87 
 
 Lis love to the heart, that he speiiks a language 
 understood by all. This is equally intelhgibic to the 
 learned and unlearned; which^ you well know, 
 science is not. From this vigorous root, practical 
 morality springs; which will be more uniioim in i-s 
 nature and tendency, than that which iiifideiity 
 recommends, as an eifect without a cause. 
 
 I meet with hut ie\v things, worthy of observation, 
 till page 24, where, after descanting on creation, yoii 
 say, " Vf'hat more does man ivaut to Ictioic, than that 
 *' the hand or power that made those things is dhiae, 
 ** is omuipofent ; let him believe this with the force it 
 *' is impossible to repel, if he permit his reason to 
 *' act, and his rule of moral life ic ill follow of course.'^ 
 On this, I will ask, — ^Vhere is the moral life you 
 M ould infer ? If your assertion be true, we may 
 expect to find the purest morality among those tribes 
 and nations, where Christianity has not destroyed its 
 existence. To what nation shall we look, to discover 
 the truth of your observation ? Instead of finding 
 morality in greater perfection, where the theory of 
 Chi'istianity is unknown, we perceive barbarism and 
 ferocity to be the distmguishing features of the human 
 mind. So insulHcient is reason to the task you assign 
 her, that, instead of finding morahty more perfect, 
 we discover only some faint traces of a belief in a first 
 cause ; and these are founded on the "rossest concei)- 
 lions, and are productive of vice rather than of viiiue. 
 
^6 I^EMAKKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 Abstracted from that knowledge which the Bible coin- 
 municates, idolatry, ignorance, and barbarism (except 
 in a ftiw philosophers) have universally overspread 
 the world. Yon could hardly have advanced a sen- 
 timent more inimical to your cause. 
 
 Speaking of the Christian system, you say, ** It 
 '* has put the whole orbit of reason in a shade.'' Has 
 it, I would ask, eclipsed the reason of the Indian 
 tribes of America, of the South Sea rslanders,^ the 
 inhabitants of the Mosambique coast, the uncivilized 
 Tartars, the ferocious Siberians, or of those who 
 people the regions near the Northern Pole ? This- 
 cannot be ; for, m ail these places, Christianity is 
 little known. Had reason shone brighter in those 
 regions, where it is not corrupted by Christianity, 
 you might then have made your assertions m ith more 
 probability of being believed. I will conclude this, 
 by saying, that the reverse is the fact; and the 
 man, who, by a single stroke of his pen, can pre- 
 sume to ^vipe out a truth, Avith which the world is 
 filled, and to the falsehood of whose assertions, mil- 
 lions can bear a\ itness, must have a front sulFicieatly- 
 daring, to shew that the orbit of his reason, from a 
 cause remote from Christianity, is in a shade. 
 
 From page 25 to page 31, perhaps you describe 
 M ell ; but you seem displeased, because the principles 
 c»t Re\elation are not founded on those of a triangle^ 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. ?l9 
 
 or a lever ; as though faith must have right angles, 
 duty the degi'ees of a quadrant, and love engross a 
 given quantity of space. This displeasure is human 
 invention, with a witness ! The sciences have al vays 
 been promoted by the circulation of the Bible ; not 
 as divinity, but as a system of beneficial knowledge. 
 To this you bow with veneration ; and, as a friend 
 of science, the Bible asks you nothing more. But, 
 as tlie source of divinity, it furnishes new principles, 
 and gives a direction to the mental faculties, which 
 cannot be measured bv scientific rules. How vou 
 will apply your lever to theology, or how a triangle 
 or mill will produce morality, I know not ; but this 
 I know, that, had you examined the principles of 
 Christianity, with half the acuteness you have used 
 to vilify them, reason would have taught you more 
 reverence and respect. 
 
 In page 3T, you exhibit together in a group, what 
 you conceive to be the absurdities of the Clu-istian 
 Revelation ; but, as you put aside these things, as 
 matters of distinct consideration, I shall say but 
 little about them. The arithmetic you speak of, 
 *' that one is three, and three is one,''' arises from 
 your not fully understanding the subject of which 
 you speak. Christians, who advocate the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, never imagine, that one is three, 
 or that three are one. They speak of three personal 
 subsistences, in one imdivided essence; but }ou ought 
 
 H 2 
 
 W 
 
9t) REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 to have known, that the terms three and one^ hare 
 distinct applications.* If thej had asserted, that 
 three essences were one essence, or that three per- 
 sons were one person, they might justly be charged 
 with asserting a contradiction. But nothing can be 
 further from their views, on the present occasion. 
 We scarcely know the modes of subsistence, of 
 which even a finite spirit may be capable, without 
 losing the miity of its essence ; and, certainly, no- 
 thing but presumption, could urge us to declare, 
 that, in a Being of unoriginated essence and per- 
 fections, a triad of persons is incompatible with a 
 unity of essence, especially, as the supposition in- 
 volves no contradiction. 
 
 * Let it not be thought, that I here attempt, to give a full ex- 
 plication of a trinity in unity. If I conld comprehend it, I would 
 reject it ; as I well know, that what I am able to comprehend, 
 cannot bii God. Until we know, what it is that constitutes essence, 
 nature, and personality, we know not how far our own mechanism 
 fs capable of undergoing new modifications ; and, if we are igno- 
 rant of ourselves, it must be the extreme of arrogance to ridicule 
 and despite the manner of the exii-tence of the infinitely wise 
 God. If I know not the limits which divide identity from 
 diversity, in created things, how can I expect to know Omni- 
 potence ? Mr. Paine can no more comprehend a self-existent 
 being ia unity, than I can in trinity ; and to make finite intelli- 
 gence the standard, by which we measure Omnipotence, is to 
 deny the existence of God : the Trinity must, therefore, be 
 secessariK incomprehensible, although it involves no contra- 
 dictiua. ' 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 91 
 
 AVliat you say, from hence to page 33, is a general 
 calumny upon Cliristianity, of obstructing useful 'j 
 
 knowledge. In the first place, you can find nothing | 
 
 opposed to it in Scripture : consequently, your charge, 
 upon this gi'oimd, disappears. Secondly, if any, who 
 make a profession of Chi'istianity, oppose scien- 
 tiiic and useful knowledge, it is not because they 
 are called Christians, but because they have departed 
 from that system, and introduced innovations. ** The 
 " centuries of barbarism^ which,' as you inform us, 
 " commenced ivick the Christian system, and con- 
 " tinned to the sixteenth century,'^ you also impute 
 to Christianity.* 
 
 ♦ The ten persecutions, which commenced with Nero, in ^b^ 
 and ended with Di'jclesian, in 303, effectually put it out of the 
 power of Christianicy, to obttnict useful knowledge, during that 
 period, if it had been so disposed ; and f > nothing can be more 
 absurd, than to make this charge on ChristiaQity, till the days 
 of Constantine, who succeeded Dioclesian, the decay ox learning, 
 in the three first ceuturics, must be attributed to some other 
 cause. Monsieur Godeat!, a French author, say=, that in th» 
 reign of Maxiraian, ITOO Christiacs Mere killed in one month ;^ 
 and that, in the province of Egypt alone, 14-?, 000 were put to 
 death, by various means ; besides an amazing number, who 
 died through excess of fatigue and imprisonraent. After Con- 
 stantine and his three sens, Christianity was again prevented 
 from impedinj useful kno^Aledge, by the insidious arts of 
 Julian, who set bimaelf to reform paganism, and died in 365. 
 This brings us nearly to the close of the fourth century, until 
 which period, it was impossible for science to be obstructed 
 by the Cbiiitiaa religion. I could easily trace the history 
 
D2 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 That barbarism and ignorance prevailed during tbe 
 first sixteen centuries, is a fact supported by evi- 
 dence, which leaves no room for doubt; but, that 
 Christianity was the cause of this mental darkness, 
 will require proofs of a different nature from those 
 which you have produced. If Christianity were the 
 cause of this barbarism, it would invariably produce 
 the same effects. Now, it is a well known fact, 
 that Christianity began to revive with Luther, and 
 its vital power was never more universally prevalent 
 than at the present time; we must, therefore, look 
 for tlie barbarism of early centuries, in some other 
 source. You know, the only way to prevent the 
 effect, is to remove the cause. However, this bar- 
 barism has ceased, and scientific knowledge is re- 
 vived ; yet the Christian system is going forward, 
 especially in those countries where scientific know- 
 ledge prevails : it, therefore, undeniably follows, 
 that Christianity is not the cause of that barbarism 
 of which you speak. Besides, the greatest men who 
 have ever adorned science, flourished under the 
 auspices of Christianity, and were the firm supporters 
 of it. Witness Newton, Boyle, Locke, with many 
 other illustrious names that might be mentioned, 
 who have, under the auspices of Christianity, added 
 more to science, than any equal number of men you 
 
 of Christianity to the present time, but the limits of this 
 public<ation will not admit it« 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 93 
 
 can find in any age of the world, who have rejected i 
 
 Revelation. How strange it is, that vou should j I 
 
 depart from common sense, and common truth, to j 
 
 support an opinion, and serve a purpose ! All you 
 have said, from your not distinguishing between 
 Christianity, and a departure from it, becomes 
 
 nugatory. 
 
 How, in the name of common sense, could learning 
 revive under Luther, whose talents were exerted in 
 restoring primitive Christianity, the principles of 
 which, according to your own account, were hostile 
 to the very existence of it? A^'hether the ancient 
 decay of learning be attributable to the Goths, the 
 Vandals, or the Monks, I take not upon me to 
 decide ; but this is evident, that your observation 
 should have been, — Luther restored Christianity ; and 
 science fell. Instead of this, we learn, tliat Luther 
 reformed that rehgion, which, you say, was hostile 
 to the arts and sciences; and that, mider Luther's 
 reformation, the liberal arts began to revive and 
 flourish; because he established those principles 
 ichich forbade them to flourish. Admirable rea- 
 soning ! yet, that this is yours, see the last paragraph 
 of page 33. 
 
 I meet with notliing worthy of further notice, till 
 page 3(J, where you say, *' / believe, that any system 
 '' of reliyion, which has any thiur/ in it uhich shocks 
 
^4 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 '* the mind of a child, cannot be a true system,'' 
 Tile objections, wiiicli are thus urged against Reve- 
 lation, are also opposed to science. The astonisiiing 
 distances of the heavenly bodies from each other; 
 their prodigious magnitudes, and amazing velocities ; 
 the annual and diurnal motion of the earth ; and the 
 progress of the moon from v/est to east; have all 
 something so repugnant to popular observation, and 
 shocking to infantine creduHty, that it staggers the 
 mind, without having the advantage of recommending 
 itself by its morality. Besides, your aigument is 
 against itself. It cannot be true, because it shocks 
 the 7nind of a child. Is a child more capable of 
 investigating such subjects than a man ? or, is the 
 immaturity of its intellect, a proof of superior per- 
 fections ? Henceforth, let divines, philosophers, and 
 astronomers, if they find any thing perplexing and 
 unaccountable, no longer give a^ ay to doubts ; the 
 remedy is at hand. — Call a child. If it shocks its 
 credulity J it cannot be true. 
 
 In the same page you say, " The Christian 
 *' mythology has five deities : there is God the Father, 
 *' God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, the God Pro- 
 ** vidcnce, and the Goddess Naiare.^' I quote this 
 only to expose it ; the Bible disowns all suck 
 charges ; providence and nature being only the me- 
 dhims through which God makes himself known, to 
 the human race. 
 
TO THOMAS FAINE. 95 
 
 In page 37, you observe, *' The two beliefs, viz. 
 *'* the plurality of worlds, and the Christian faith, 
 " cannot be held together , in the same mind ; and he, 
 " uho thinks he believes both, has thought but little 
 " of eiihei'" Newton thought otherT^ise, and so did 
 Locke, and so did Boyle, and Bacon, and many 
 other great men ; and they thought so, from a rational 
 conviction of the probabilitv' of both. Had you 
 painted out the incongruity of the two beUefs, your 
 arguments would, at least, be entitled to a refuta- 
 tion ; but, as you have not attempted to point out 
 their incompatibility, it affords great room for sus- 
 pecting the truth of your allegation ; and, as the 
 declaration stands, it is scarcely worth a denial. 
 
 What you say, till page 42, is scientific, and has 
 nothing that militates against Christianity ; you then 
 observe, " In the midst of these reflections, what are 
 ** ice to think of the Christian system of faith, which 
 ^^ forms itself upon the idea of only one world?" 
 I answer, — We are to think, what rational beings 
 ought to think, that 
 
 " Through worlds unnumbered, though the God be known, 
 *' 'Tis ours to trace him only in our own." 
 
 Christianity, with a modesty peculiar to itself, 
 passes over, in silence, what forms no part of its 
 design ; which was not to establish science, but 
 divinity, faith, and morality. Its nature, its object, 
 
96 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 its tendency, and its end, are all founded on princi- 
 ples distinct from science; and, therefore, are no 
 more to be reduced to scientific rules, than ponde- 
 rosity or magnitude can be applied to virtue or vice. 
 What would you think of a history of France or 
 England, which founded itself upon the idea of only 
 one nation ? You would certainly think, as you 
 ought to think, that it answered its proposed end, 
 and treated of such things as were essential to 
 the undertaking. If a system of geography were 
 MTitten before the discovery of America, would the 
 discovery of that continent, falsify its account of 
 Europe, Asia, or Africa ? Certainly not : much 
 less would it follow, that the discovery of America 
 demonstrated that no such places as Europe, Asia, 
 and Africa existed. Is Christianity false, because it 
 delineates only such things as belong to its system ? 
 The Christian s^'stem is such, that it assigns to pro- 
 per causes, the effects which result from them ; but 
 to say, it is defective, because it treats not on such 
 things as come not within its reach, and which form 
 no part of its contemplation, is a conclusion too ab- 
 surd to name. The Christian system • leaves to 
 conjecture what belongs thereto, without affirming 
 or denying any thmg about it. You give your read- 
 ers, in this instance, a proof of the fallibility of 
 human reason ; which, as it may err, is not to be 
 implicitly trusted in matters of eternal moment, al- 
 though by you it is deified. 
 
TO THOMAS t»AlM£. 
 
 m 
 
 Voii ask, page 42, " ^'^ /'// should ivc supposic, that 
 *' God should quit the care of miilions of worlds, 
 " equally dependant on hint, to die for thin? Shati 
 *' 2ce suppose, that he died for all thc^e ivorlds ? Ih 
 " this case, he wovld hare nothing else to do, but to 
 *' travel from tcorld to world, in an endless succession 
 •' of death, without scarcely a moment's interval of 
 " life.'' To this I may repl\-, that Christianity is 
 )iow out of the question ; and we enter upon that 
 ample field, where conjecture leads the way, with 
 probahility for its guide. As to the multitude of 
 worlds, which are scattered through the immensity of 
 space, I doubt not that tliey are inhabited, alihougli 
 this cannot be prored ; but w hat these inhabitants, or 
 their intellectual endowments, are, I know not, nor do 
 I trouble myself about them. Nevertheless, observing 
 the constitution of our bodies to vary, in propor- 
 tion to the temperature of the climates in which 
 we dwell, it seems reasonable to conclude, that the 
 inhabitants of planetary worlds must have the con- 
 stitution of their bodies niodilied, agreeably to the 
 temperature of the orbs on which they live; and., 
 as the transition, from one sphere to another, must 
 be very greai, the same proportion must be pre.-erved, 
 in all their respective inhabitants. ]Now, as this is 
 likely to be the case, in the material part of animated 
 nature, v.hy should we doubt, that God has made, 
 and uniformly preserved, the same variation in intel- 
 lectual endowments ? 
 
 , yl 
 
'98 REMARKS, ADDKr-SSFD 
 
 When I contemplate ti;e immeasurable distance 
 tlip.t there h, hetv.eeii the infinitely wise God, and 
 the wisest man tbat ever lived, I iniuiediatelv per- 
 ceive siicli an aninzinir cliasni, in the great chain of 
 knowledge, as dl the inhabitants of created %vorlds 
 v.orJd net be able to supply, thoiiffh every intel- 
 lectual being should rise in a regular climax, and 
 move onward, frcm man, toward perfection. For 
 «nght we know, amidst all the habitable worlds, which 
 are scattered through the immensity of space, the 
 globe which we inhabit, may CGi>(ain those beings, 
 which are the least advanced in the scale of knoM- 
 ledge ; or, we may form a higher link, and be further 
 advanced in the scale of understanding. But, ob- 
 serving the infinite distance that there is between 
 us and our Creator, to conceive that human nature 
 has received from God the utmost perfection, and 
 that it has arrived at the extremity of communicable 
 intelligence, is a piece of arrogance 1 will cot adopt. 
 
 What the essential properties of liTiman nature 
 are, or how far they are capable of being modi- 
 fied, I know not; nor do I know, how far these 
 properties may be sul'ject to alterations, \^hile they 
 leave the link in the scale of bei;ig entire, j^ut it ap- 
 pears strange to conceive, that God sliould make such 
 essential ditierences, in the various foims of intelli- 
 gent and animated beings, in the world which we 
 inhabit, and yet pre^eive an iii>ariulle sameness 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 99 
 
 tliroiigliout the universe; and that nothing should 
 approach nearer in pei-fection to him than man. 
 
 It is a fact, that there are but t\vo primitive sub- 
 stances, with which we are acquainted, in universal 
 nature : these are, matter and spirit : and in these two 
 substances, ali essences, of which we have any know- 
 ledge, must inhere. Tnere is, therefore, something 
 narrow and mean in the idea, that God neither has 
 at his disposal, nor can create, other substances, 
 as far removed from matter and spirit, as these are 
 from each other; and from these substances, which 
 we camiot name, cause new worlds of essences to 
 arise. If this be admitted possible, new sources of 
 intelligence m ill open in these ample fields, at which, 
 even conjecture itself may be astonished. 
 
 The denomination of all distinction in species, 
 depends on the distinct essences of their natures ; 
 but where the lines or boundaries of these species 
 or essences begin or end, or hov\" they lose themselves 
 in other essences, so as to obtain a new denomination, 
 is what neither you nor I can ascertain. To con- 
 ceive, therefore, that human nature is the only one 
 that God has endowed with intelligence, is fomided 
 on a very gross conception. \^ hat relation there 
 is between human and angelic natures, we know 
 not; but it may be, for auglit we know to the cou- 
 frarv, that the iiumau and angelic natures, are the 
 
TOO REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 only ones capable of admitting moral evil; and, if 
 so, the only ones from whom it can be extracted ; 
 and, consequently, for whom there can be any neces- 
 sity of Christ's d} ing. And if, of two fallen natures, 
 God has chosen to redeem one, and pass the other 
 by, he commits no injustice to either. Be these 
 things as they may, the Bible teaches us a modesty, 
 that confines speculation to conjecture;, abstracted 
 irom all positive assertions. 
 
 How can we conceive, that God has made no 
 variation in the multitude of worlds which he has 
 cr(;ated, when we behold such a variety of beings in 
 that which we inhabit, all differing in species from 
 one another, and all rising in regular gradation one 
 above another, in the vast chain of being, till the 
 highest link ends in man? I conceive it possible, 
 that,, in some orb or other,^ the lowest degree of 
 intelligence may rise as much above man, as he does- 
 above the next link inferior to himself; and that 
 intelligence may rise, in regular progi'ession, till finite 
 comprehension may be able to discern where mate- 
 rial loses itself in immaterial nature. However, 
 quitting these speculations, and admitting that there 
 is an entire sameness throughout the universe, in 
 created things, it does not follow, that the proba- 
 tioners of other workU fell, because Adam did in 
 this; and, if not, they wanted no redemption; 
 m\ admitting that they fell, it does not follow , that 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 
 
 IGt 
 
 they cannot be redeemed without the death of Christ. 
 The conditions of their allegiance might, probably, 
 be as diiTerent from ours, as moral is from natural 
 evil, or duration from extension, or expansion from 
 either. I am inclined to think, that the absurdities 
 yon have advanced, would, if asserted in the 
 Bible, be precisely such as you would ^^i^h to 
 have before you to expose. Perhaps those things, 
 which, with us, are moral virtues and moral vices, 
 they can form no more idea of, than we can of a 
 third substance, totally distinct from matter and 
 spirit, in which unknown essences inhere. 
 
 In page 43, 3-ou say, ** But such is the sfranfje 
 *' construction of the Christian system of faith, that 
 *' every evidence the heavens afford to man, either 
 " contradict it, or render it absurdJ' Tliis being 
 only an assertion, it merits no reply, but a denial. 
 However, it so happens, that there is not one evidence 
 in these works of God, v^hich disagrees with the 
 Christian system ; miless you, by a new mode of 
 reasoning, construe silence into a contradiction; or, 
 because the language, which alludes to some pha^nc- 
 mena of nature, is not expressed agreeably to modern 
 discoreries, think fit to charge it with absurdity. 
 
 In the same page, you say, " The three means 
 ** which have been employed, in all ages, to impose 
 ** upon mankind, are mystery, miracle, and prophecy."' 
 
 I 2 
 
102 EEMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 In the first place you observe, that " mystery cannot 
 *' he applied to moral truth, any more than obscurity 
 " can to light.'' We meet in the Bible,, with the 
 mystery of godliness , and the mystery of iniquity ; 
 but the tnystery of moral duty, if that be what you 
 mean, by '* moral truthj' is hardly entitled to a moral 
 name. If you can find, in all the Christian system, 
 any thing, which calls the essential moral duties of 
 man, mysteries, you will make to me a new discovery, 
 unless mentioned in a philosophical manner; and, 
 in this sense, every thing is a mystery. But, if by 
 moral truth, you mean, truth in the abstract, then 
 your assertion appears M'rong. There is not a faculty 
 of the humaji mind, that is not mysterious ; and all 
 its operations are equally so. How evidence can 
 subdue judgment, and produce an alteration therein, 
 ts beyond our comprehension ; yet this is a moral 
 truth. It is also a moi al truth, that there is moral 
 evil in the world ; yet it is a mystery. These are 
 moral truths, — that we are capable of mental pain 
 and pleasure, of hope, of fear, of joy, of grief, of 
 reflection, and of anticipation : yet all these things 
 are mysterious; although you say, " Mystery cannot 
 " be applied to moral truth." 
 
 AVhen any phaenomenon is discovered in iiature, 
 abstracted from its cause, it is referred to mystery, 
 with another name. Thus the occult among the 
 ancients, and the primary qualities amongst the 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 
 
 103 
 
 moderns, supply that place in the natural, which 
 mystery does in the moral world; so that, in this 
 respect, revelation and nature go hand in hand. 
 Before you despised mystery, you should have been 
 certain, that the thing called mysterious, was within 
 the reach of possible knowledge ; for not till then, 
 can you justly pass sentence. L iiless you are certain 
 of the extent of human capacity, yo<i cannot ascer- 
 tain, whether the thing called mystery has been ren- 
 dered so, from the incommunicability of its nature, or 
 the limitation of the human understanding. Whatever 
 truth is not within the reach of the human powers, 
 is a mystery ; but there are many moral truths which 
 we cannot understand; consequently, mystery can 
 be applied to moral truth. It is morally true, that 
 God is good, just, holy, t^c. ; but how these things 
 are so, we know not; and, consequently, all are 
 mysteries. 
 
 You further say, *' Mystery is the antagonist of 
 *' tiuth.^' If so, no truth can be mysterious; but 
 many truths are mysterious ; therefore, your asser- 
 tion is false. Whatever is a real mystery, depends 
 upon truth for its existence ; for nothing can result 
 from nothing : it is a truth unknown that makes a 
 real mystery. Had you said. Mystery is the anta- 
 gonist of perspicuity, you would have nearly hit the 
 mark ; but, as the identity of truth depends neither 
 on perspicuity, uor mystery, all you infer from 
 
 ^ 
 ^ 
 
 /h 
 
104 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 thence must be false. You haA e blended mystei'T 
 with falsehood. Falsehood is the antagonist of 
 truth; but mystery is not falsehood; consequently, 
 not the antagonist of truth. 
 
 You again observe, in the same page, " Truth 
 never envelopes itself in a mystery^ What an ab- 
 surdity ! Is the connexion between matter and spirit 
 not enveloped in a mystery ? Is the existence of 
 God enveloped in no myctei'y ? Is not the human mi- 
 derstanding a mystery ? Are not the motions of the 
 heavenly bodies mysteries ? In fine, is not almost 
 every thing enveloped in mystery? And 3^et you, 
 in spite of ten thousand possible demonstiations, 
 tell the world, that ** truth never envelopes itself in 
 " a mystery y If truth never envelopes itself in a 
 mystery, whatever thus envelopes itself must be 
 false ; consequently, whatever we cannot compre- 
 hend, it is our duty to reject, as false; and, if so, 
 we must deny our o^\n existence. However, I will 
 dismiss the thought, with the obsenations already 
 ofl'ered. 
 
 Next comes miracle. Although I have been ex- 
 amining, with all possible attention, your description 
 of miracle, I should not have mentioned any tiling 
 about it, had it not been to avoid the imputation of 
 passing it over in silence ; for I find, in all you say 
 on this head, notliiug but ridicule and buffoonery. 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE, 
 
 lorj 
 
 nnwortby, and almost incapable of admitting, a reply. 
 Your observation on Jouab and tbe whale, I mention, 
 on tbe same account. It is, as I observed in tbe 
 beginning of tbis publication, calculated to excite 
 contempt in tbe minds of tbe tbiuking, — an idea of 
 your immorality in tbe prudent, — and a confirmation, 
 in tbe pious, of tbose sentiments, wbicli you calimi- 
 niate. and affect to despise. 
 
 In page 47, you attempt to bold up to ridicule, 
 what you call, " the devil f^yiiig aicay with Jestis 
 " Christ, and shewing him all the kingdoms of the 
 " tvorld." You tben ask, " How is it that he did 
 *•' not discover America?^' I answer: — First, no man 
 can rationally suppose, tbat tbis was real, literal, and 
 personal. It was visionary ; and, as visionary scene* 
 are incommunicable, except tbrougb comparison, 
 this is notbing more tban a comparison made use of, 
 to convey to us what would be otherwise unintelli- 
 gible. Secondly, as to tbe discovery of America, — 
 this expression was equally as just tben, as tbe same 
 expression would be now. Tbe whole world, was 
 denominated from what was then known ; as we say, 
 the whole world is described in a map, though there 
 may be many islands which are yet unknown, and 
 many parts of Asia, Africa, and America, unex- 
 plored to tbis day. Alexander is always represented 
 as having conquered tbe world ; and the Romans 
 were said to have made the world tributary to them: 
 
106 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 none of which expressions ai-e to be taken in an 
 unliiiiited sense of the word, but compaiatively; nor 
 can they be understood in any other sense, without 
 using unjustiiiable distortions. 
 
 You say, page 48, " Li every point of view, in 
 " li'hich the.ie miracles can be placed and considered, 
 " the reality of them is improbable, and their exist- 
 *' ence unnecessary." First, as to the probabihty of 
 miracles, you know they are always ascribed to the 
 power of God ; and, if the miracles ascribed to his 
 power were actually performed thereby, the impro- 
 bability of tlieir reality vanishes at once. Secondly, 
 the reality of these miracles are attested hy profane 
 as well as sacred writers ; and so well satisfied were 
 the enemies of Christianity, in the first centuries 
 after its establishment, of their reality, that, instead 
 of attempting to deny, they chose to attribute them to 
 some magical or infernal power. 
 
 You seem to infer the improbability of miracles 
 from the following observation, in page 47 : — " / never 
 ** saw these things, nor nature thus go out of her 
 '* course, but have reason to believe that millions of 
 *' lies have been told in the same time; and, therefore, 
 " it is a million to one, that the reporter of these 
 " things tells lies.'' This is scepticism with a wit- 
 ness ! I never saw a battle between U\ o armies ; 
 nevertheless, I believe such thin'gs have happened. 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 
 
 lot 
 
 I never saw twenty men lie dead logother ; yet I 
 cannot doubt that others have : and to reject every 
 thing, besides -what comes within the reach of my 
 own observations, is to annihilate, at one stroke, 
 every event that took place before I was born. I 
 never saw a volcano, and thousands besides mvself; 
 yet, since the last eruption of Vesuvius, I have rea- 
 son to believe, that millions of lies have been told : 
 fkereforCy it is a million to one, that the reporter of 
 such eruptions told lies ! ^ oidd not any man despise 
 such reasoning ? Besides, the niirac'les to which you 
 allude, were not ascribed to the eccentricities of 
 nature, but to nature receiving supernatural impres- 
 sions and impulses. To talk of " nature going out 
 of her way," without supernatural impulses, is a 
 contradiction in terms; and to admit supernatural 
 aid, is to admit miracle. 
 
 However, resting this point on your own princi- 
 ples, — that it is probable these accounts are false, 
 because inillious of lies have been told in the same 
 timey it is the same as if I a\ ere to say, — It is very 
 probable, that the accounts given of the miracles of 
 Christ are true, because I have never seen iheni fal- 
 sified in my time ; and, as I have much reason to 
 believe, that millions of truths have been told, since 
 that iime, it is, therefore, a million to one, that the 
 reporters of them have told truths. The only weight 
 I M ould lay upon this observation — for I would 
 
108 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 not call it an argument — is, that it is entitled to as 
 much credit as yours, on the contrary. And, as all 
 scripture miracles are ascribed to the power of God, — 
 and it is admitted, that he has power adequate to the 
 purpose, — it, follows, from the evidence on which 
 such miracles rest, that they must be admitted on 
 the score of probability; and as miracles were 
 probable, so they were necessary, in the early ages 
 of Christianity. 
 
 The propagators of Christianity had to contend 
 ■w ith the Jewish prejudices, the Roman idolatry, and 
 the whole torrent of Grecian philosophy; and, in 
 addition to these, they had to combat with the arts of 
 magic. Amidst this combination of prejudice and 
 hostility on the one hand, and their own obscurity on 
 the other, it became necessary, for the benefit of il- 
 literate converts, who could not fully master the 
 arguments on which the divinity of the system 
 rested, and also to silence sophistical reasonings, that 
 
 what they delivered in w ords should be substantiated 
 
 •J 
 
 by actions; and nothing could be supposed to an- 
 swer such a design better than miracle. A single 
 miracle would produce conviction sooner than a 
 volume of abstracted reasonings ; as w ell as silence, 
 at one stroke, all that sophistry might urge against the 
 propriety of Christianity. Besides, miracles were 
 necessary, to prevent future infidels from saying, 
 " Christ could not be any thing more than a man ; 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. Y^i^ 
 
 *"* for he performed uo action beyond the ability of 
 ** man" But now, they are deprived of such argu- 
 inents ; and, if any such attempts should be made, 
 infidelity maj' l>e referred to the Bible for miracles ; 
 which must produce silence, on that head, sooner than 
 all the arguments, anti all the eloquence, which the 
 defenders of Christianity might urge, to support their 
 cause; and, hence, they become both proba-ble and 
 necessary. Your deportment in this place, seems to 
 incorporate a strange composition of contradictions. 
 You despise Christianity, because it does not come 
 with a demonstration it is incapable of admitting j 
 which demonstration, if admitted, must be miracu- 
 lous ; and yet you reject Chiistianity, on the other 
 hand, because it is attested by miracles. You admit, 
 that nothing can be a mii-acle, wlrich is cajiable of 
 full comprehension ; and yet you refuse your assent, 
 because its miracles are unaccomitable. 
 
 You say, page 48,** Moral principle speaks uni- 
 *' versally." So far as it is imderstood, I \\'n\ readily 
 grant the fact; and yet, something like miracle seems 
 to be necessary, to ensure moral practice ; for it is a, 
 truth, not to be disputed, that all men do not act in 
 conformity to the dictates of this universal instructor. 
 Now, admitting the truth of your observalion, 1 
 think it must follow, either that all do not hear, or 
 that all do not understand ; and, therefore, either the 
 principle or the subject must be defective. If it be 
 
 K 
 
110 REMARKS, ADDRESSES 
 
 the principle, its universality is done away ; and, if 
 tlie subject, the principle is inadequate to the accom- 
 plishment of its end : and, in either case, your ob- 
 servation falls to the ground. 
 
 Having dismissed mystery and miracle, you next 
 attack prophecy. Hence, in the page last quoted, 
 you sa}', " As mystery and miracle took charge of 
 '* the past, so prophecy took charge of the future, and 
 *' rounded the tetises of faith.^^ But, although you 
 make this unequivocal declaration, we must not for- 
 get, what you have asserted in another place ; namely, 
 that " Jesus Christ called men to the practice of 
 *' moral virtue, and the belief of one God." Now, 
 as this description of what Christ taught, thus deli- 
 vered in your own words, comes not under either of 
 the terms, which you say, " rounded the tenses of 
 faith," it cannot be denied, that the universal dominion 
 which, according to your views of tlie Christian 
 iaith, you have ascribed to mystery, miracle, and 
 prophecy, must be false. 
 
 You again say, in the same page, *' If a prophet 
 *• shot within a thousand miles of the mark, posterity 
 '• could make it point blank.'" If you, or any impar- 
 tial man, were to read the fifty-thiid ckapter of Isaiah, 
 and compare it with the suiicrings of Christ; and 
 read the seventy weeks of Daniel, and compare them 
 M ith the great epoch of time in which Christ suffered ; 
 
TO THOMAS PAIN.E. U1- 
 
 voii will then find, that both these have shot within 
 five hundred miles of their mark ; and it must have 
 been great disiugenuity in posterity, not to have 
 perceived it. The reason, why many things, which 
 we find, in what are called the prophetic parts of 
 the Bible, are obscure, is, because both the pre- 
 diction and its accomplisliment are past ; and, there- 
 fore, are rendered equally unknown. To make every 
 prediction speak intelligibly, must be, to make it 
 receive its accomplishment in our day; for, v.ithout 
 this, prophecy must necessarily be obscure ; and to 
 admit the full accomplishment of all prophecy, in 
 modern days, is to render prophecy objectionable to 
 all the past ages of the world, and to deprive all 
 futurity of the means of satisfying doubtful incredu- 
 lity. On every rational principle, therefore, it must 
 folio \v, that, as our age is but a part of one great 
 whole, the wisdom of the bible-maker, is conspicuous ; 
 for he has given, to e\ery age, a sufficient accom- 
 plishment of prophecy to satisfy rational investigation, 
 without depriving any other of those evidences, w hich 
 rationality might with justice demand. If the lon- 
 gevity of man, were coeval with time, then, and then 
 only, could we expect to see the accomplishment 
 of all the predictions which are contained in the 
 Bible; but then, the succession of the human race 
 would be no more. All circumstances thus con- 
 sidered, it is, to me. a doubtful case, whether 
 
' -« — K.- .ammsr^iTtF^tmmimfmmi^^tmKmmmmmmmifmi^ 
 
 J\2 REMARKS, ADDRES&ED 
 
 prophecy ran be divested of all obscurity, and ye-t 
 retain its name. 
 
 You further abserre, *' It has been proved, iu 
 •' the former part of this work, that the original 
 '^ meaning of the word prophet meant poet, and is 
 " changed into prophet in tnodern times.*' This, sir, 
 h a mistake ; you have only attempted to prove, 
 that the prophets were poets,™ which, I believe, is 
 generally admitted,, — without once attempting to 
 prove, that they were not prophets, in the sense of 
 modern times ; and all you ha^ e left to be im- 
 pressed thereby, on the minds of your readers, is, 
 that, if it can be proved they were poets, it is a 
 snflieieut proof that they were not prophets^ 
 
 From these observations,. I sliall turn to page 49, 
 where you say, '* Either there wei'e such men, or 
 " there irere not." On this I rest it : and, although 
 you have not drawn your own inferences,— which, in 
 fact, you could not do, to your advantage, — I will 
 endeavour to draw mine. If there were such men, 
 the point is admitted ; if there were no such men, 
 there coidd be na such predictions, nor any such cor- 
 je.-pondence between the prediction and the event,, 
 as we lind ; but there are predictions, and events 
 to correspond therewith ; * therefore, there wer& 
 such men. 
 
 * See page 29. 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 113 
 
 If it be esteemed rational, that man can, upon 
 natural principles, calculate an eclipse, by looking 
 through the progression of nature, why should it be 
 thought irrational, to suppose, that God could unfold 
 the human intellect, so as to look through a train of 
 contingencies to a certain event, or inspire the 
 same man to pronounce upon the certainty of an 
 event, whose causes might be wholly unknown ? To 
 admit the possibdity of either case, is to destroy the 
 impossibility of prophec} ; and to behold events cor- 
 respond with the predictions which preceded them, 
 is to have all the certainty of knowledge which the 
 thing is capable of admitting. 
 
 I now turn to your last expression, or argument, 
 with wjiich you close your book. In page 50, jour 
 words are, " Adam, if ever there was such a man, mu:it 
 ** have been created a Deist.'' I take it for an admitted 
 point, that all your intelligence, respecting Adam, has 
 been derived from the Bible ; and, if so, to that 
 account we must refer, to know whether Adam was 
 a Deist or not. I conceive, from your book, that 
 Deism includes, among other things, a denial of all 
 revealed religion, abstracted from science ; and, if 
 so, Adam was not a Deist. 
 
 His history was this : — God told him, " Of all the 
 trees in the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the 
 tiee of the knowledge of good and evil^ thou shall not 
 
 K 2 
 
wmmf^mmm 
 
 114 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 eat of it ; for in the daj tbon eatest thereof thou shall 
 sm-ely die." Are this prohibition aud this liberty con- 
 sistent With Deism ? If so, Deism was different, when 
 Adam was created, from what it is now; aud it is 
 not to be relied upon. ^Ye find, however, that Adam 
 was soon instructed in the principles of Deism. His 
 instructor appears to be the devil, whose language was 
 somewhat similar to what has been used by man, of 
 much more modern date. The purport of what he 
 told Adam was, that this threatened cure was an 
 imjmsifiGii, set vp " to terrify and enslave mankind i^ 
 — that it zcas a lie ; — that no suck thing ivoukl happen 
 as he expected ; hut, on the contrary y he should be as 
 God, and be able, from rational knowledge, to discover 
 the fraud f;d fahh, and reject the imposture with con- 
 tempt. l\h woids were, in etfect, / cannot dis- 
 hoitour my maker, bij calling ^^ such j^altry stories the 
 word of God;'' for Gr^d kno{celh,thaf in the day ye 
 eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be 
 as Gods, knowing good and evil: — ye shall not .stirely 
 die. The event was, that Adam attended to this rea- 
 soning, denied revelation, and commenced Dtist; aud 
 tiie consequences were, — the introduction of moral 
 evil, — the pains and calamities of mind and body, — 
 the misery of tiie human race, — and, iinaiiy, death* 
 These are facts, which we know on this side the 
 grave; but v, liat av.aits us on the other, abstracted 
 from the Bible, we must die to know. This is the. 
 soiuce of Dei:-:m, as it relates to Adam ; the fatal 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. Il5 
 
 effects of which, you and I feel, whether mc will 
 acknowledge them or not. Ail, therefore, that you 
 have said, respecting Adam ]>eing created a Deists 
 tarns to yom- disadvantage, and upbraids you with 
 tlie falsehood of your relation respecting him. 
 
 To adopt your own mode of expression, I will say, 
 Adam was either created a Deist, or he m as not. 
 If not, 3'ou give up the point ; if he was, his was a 
 Deism that admitted revelation, but Avhich modern 
 Deism denies : consequently, Adam, in the modern 
 sense of the term, was not created a Deist; but he 
 became so, after his creation, by hearkening to, and 
 following the advice of the devil ; and, therefore, 
 your observation must be false. To redeem him 
 from this deplorable state, into which Deism had 
 plunged him, the Saviour came do\^n from heaven, 
 and oifered that ransom which you despise. 
 
 The last page in your book presents your readers 
 w ith the most prominent features of your arguments, in 
 miniature. You observe, that *' Human language is 
 *' inadequate to the accomplishment of the purpose 
 " of revelation ; and, therefore, it cannot be true.'' 
 If this principle be admitted, no written testimony 
 can be received ; because the purpose of writing is, to 
 convey intelh'gence which was not known before, or 
 to preserve what, otherwise, would not be so perma- 
 nent. If written testimony be rejected, because 
 
116 REMARKS, ADDRESSES 
 
 liable to suspicion, this great medium of communi- 
 cation must be cut off, and oral testimony, must, of 
 necessity, follow its fate ; for, if I cannot believe a 
 man's written evidence, it is not possible for me to 
 believe his word. A principle more dangerous to 
 civil society can hardly be imagined. It is fraught 
 with every species of mischief. It will permit the 
 murderer to go unpunished, and the plunderer un- 
 detected ; it exposes the harmless innocent to tlie 
 savage attacks of the brutal ravisher; and it opens 
 the door to every viliany. 
 
 If oral or written evidence cannot be admitted, 
 because one thousand years old, neither can it, if 
 five hundred, one hundred, one year, or one day : 
 to admit a principle, is to make it of universal appli- 
 cation. That principle, which is immoral in its 
 nature, and pernicious in its tendency, must neces- 
 sarily be bad ; but these things are so ; therefore, 
 the principle must be bad. By admitting this prin- 
 ciple, you defeat the just laws of every community, 
 in their operations, by debarring evidence from vin- 
 dicating the innocent, or criminating the guilty. 
 These consequences being contrary to every principle 
 of justice, the source, from v.Iiich they flow, must 
 be also unjust. If injustice be inadmissible into 
 civil society, then that, which produces it, must like- 
 wise be inadmissible : but the one is true ; therefore, 
 the other must be also. Whatever God is the creator 
 
•I 
 
 TO THOMAS PAINE. 117 
 
 of, he can make subservient to his purposes ; but 
 God is the creator of human speech and language ; 
 therefore, he can make it subservient to his purposes. 
 Whatever involves not an absolute contradiction, God^ 
 can do ; but making language the rehicle of com- 
 munication, inrolves no contradiction ; therefore, 
 God can make it the vehicle of communication. The 
 probability of an alteration, where there is no evidence 
 to support that probabilit}', leaves the probability of 
 no alteration being made ; therefore, all you insinuate 
 from hence, amounts to nothing. 
 
 You say, " The word of God is in the creation.'^* 
 As a demonstration of his power, I admit it; but as 
 a system of duties, which we owe to God, and to one 
 another, I deny it. It does not teach the moral duty, of 
 doing to all men, what we, in the like circumstances, 
 would wish to have returned. It does not teach us 
 to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to visit the 
 sick, or to bear with the infirmities of our fellow 
 creatures ; and, therefore, it camiot be, in a moral 
 sense, the word of God. 
 
 * I should as soon expect, that men, in general, would learn 
 the duties of morality^ from contemplating a hedge of thorns, a 
 heap of stone?, or a pool of water, as from the rest of c reation 
 for the things I have mentioned, are as much the word of God, 
 «« Saturn, or Sirius. 
 
nPilIMP 
 
 118 REMARKS, ADDRESSED 
 
 Secondly, it is not intelligible to all capacities; and, 
 therefore, it cannot be the source of moral duties. 
 That, of all problems, is the most obscure, which 
 teaches moral duty, from the creation ; and yet moral 
 duty is most essential to be known. That, therefore, 
 cannot be the teacher of moral duty, which conceals 
 what it came to inculcate ; and, consequently, cre- 
 ation cannot be the word of God. 
 
 That science has not been always understood aright, 
 is evident, from only adverting to the systems of 
 Ptolemy and Tycho-Brahe. If a knowledge of 
 science be necessary to morality, then it is necessary 
 that science should be universally known ; but this 
 is not the case ; and, therefore, this could not be de- 
 signed by God, as the means of communicating his will. 
 These observations will not apply to revelation. la 
 revelation, ** moral principle speaks universally;" and, 
 through redemption, its blessings are capable of spi- 
 ritual communication. Such as have not the Bible, 
 are a law unto themselves ; and they are equally under 
 the protection of that God, who reaps not where 
 he has not sown, nor gathers where he has not 
 strewed. 
 
 Finally, Christianity and Deism are like two ves- 
 sels, fitted out for the same distant region; but dif- 
 fering in the cargoes with which they are freighted. 
 
TO THOMAS PAINE. 
 
 110 
 
 Christianity says, that morality is not marketable, 
 without faith; Deism says it is, and that faith is su- 
 perfluous and unnecessary. Now, admitting Deism to 
 be right, Christianity cannot be wrong ; because she, 
 as well as Deism, has morality ; but, if faith should 
 be essential to the acceptance of morality, Deism 
 must be wrong. This is a fair statement of the case ; 
 and, on principles of rationality, it requires no time 
 to determine a prudent choice. I choose, for my part, 
 to embark on board Christianity ; and I sincerely 
 wish, that I may be so faithful to its principles and 
 practices, as to obtain, at last, my part in the re- 
 surrection of the just. And, that you, sir, though 
 labouring to sink my ** vessel in the gaping deep," 
 may, through that mercy which you reject, arrive 
 safely at the haven of peace, where an extraction 
 of moral evil from our natures, shall annihilate 
 profaneness of sentiment, and lead us forth, to re- 
 ceive a common Saviour's love, is the unfeigned wish 
 of one, who, till that awful period shall arrive, will 
 be, in all probability, to you unknown. 
 
 THE END. 
 
J. H. DREW, PRrSTER, 
 ST. AUSTLE, CORNWALL. 
 
SHORTLY WILL APPEAR, 
 In two volumes^ octavo, price 18s. in boards, 
 
 AN ESSAY, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 BEING, ATTRIBUTES, AND PROVIDENCE, 
 
 OF 
 
 By S. drew. 
 
 Printed by J. H. Drew, St, Austh. 
 
 SOLD IN lOXDOjr BY W. BAYNES AND SON, PATERNOSTER ROTV, 
 AND BLANSHARO, CITY ROAD; 
 
 And to be had of all other Booksellers. 
 
 March, 1820. 
 
CO 
 
 CN 
 
 g 
 (^ 
 
 Z 
 
 14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 «o 
 
 _o 
 
 uj| 
 
 0) 
 
 D 
 TJ 
 
 «/) 
 
 _o 
 
 0) 
 
 o 
 £ 
 
 c 
 
 '«5 
 _o 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 J^ 
 
 
 
 D 
 
 ■o 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 0^ 
 < 
 
 fiQ 
 
 P-^ 
 
 L 
 
 
 
 C 
 u 
 
 a 
 
 S 
 
 < 
 
 h- 
 </) 
 
 < 
 
 D 
 O 
 
 >r£CTo U.M 
 
 4£ill_^i0 
 
 LD 21-100?n-6,'56 
 (B9311sl0)476 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
}ol) 
 
 ^.C, BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 CD57ani77