Works. — As a writer Paine has sometimes been compared with Gibbon (q. v.). Both wrote on relig- ion, philosophy, and politics. But these two authors are so very unlike each other that they should be com- pared only as extremes of the same general school. The freethinker Paine is a character of a very different kind from the freethinker Gibbon. The latter is the polished scholar, the polite man of letters ; the former an active man of the world, educated by men rather than books, of low tastes and vulgar tone. Gibbon's religious scepticism is that of high life, Paine's of low. In the treatment of religious topics, the one writer sneers, the other hates. The one is a philosopher, the other a poli- tician. Schooled in the politico-pliilosophical doctrines of Rousseau, Paine became the exponent of this French- man among the lower orders of the Anglo-Saxon family, by combining in his teachings the doctrines of Rousseau with those of the English deists. The language in which he clothes his thoughts betrays, besides, great familiarity with the bitterness of Voltaire. An edition of Paine's Political Writings was published at Boston in 1856 (2 vols. 8vo), and at New York (1860, Timo) ; and in the same year his so-called Theological Writings were is- sued. In London a complete edition of his works was published in 1861. The two great works of Thomas Paine are, as we have seen above. The Rights of Man and The Age of Reason. Of the former we have not place to treat here, as the religious views espoused therein reappear, only in a more oljjectionable form, in the second work. The Age of Reason was a pamphlet admitting of quick perusal. It was afterwards followed by a second part, in which a defence was offered against the replies made to the former part. The object of the two is to state reasons for rejecting the Bible (pt. i, p. 3- 19 ; pt. ii, p. 8, 83), and to explain the nature of the re- j ligion of deism (pt. i, p. 3, 4, 21-50; pt. ii, p. 83-93), , which was proposed as a substitute. A portion is devot- ed to an attack on the external evidence of revelation, or, as the author blasphemously calls it, " the three prin- cipal means of imposture" (p. 44), prophecy, miracles, and mystery ; the latter of which he asserts may exist in the physical, but not by the nature of things in the moral world. A larger portion is devoted to a collec- tion of the various internal difficulties of the books of the Old and New Testament, and of the schemes of re- ligion, Jewish and Christian (pt. ii, p. 10-83). The great mass of these olyections are those which had been sug- gested by English or French deists, but are stated with extreme bitterness. The most novel part of this worlt is tlie use which Paine makes of the discoveries of astronomy, in revealing the vastness of the universe and a plurality of globes, to discredit the idea of interference on behalf of this insignificant planet — an argument wliich he wields especially against the doctrine of in- carnation (pt. i, p. 37-44). But no part of his work manifests such bitterness, and at the same time such a specious mode of argument, as his attack on the doctrine of redemption and substitutional atonement (p. 20), The religion which Paine proposed to substitute for Christianity was the belief in one God as revealed by science; in immortality as the continuance of conscious existence; in the natural equality of man; and in the obligation of justice and mercy to one's neighbor (pt. ii, p. 3, 4, 50).
As a writer, Paine must be granted to possess a vig- orous and clear style; though somewhat coarse and sim-
PAINE
537
PAINT
pie, it is enlivened with comparisons and illustrations which render it very popular and attractive. He saw clearly the weak points of any object against wliich he directed his attack, and accordingly he was a vigorous assailant ; but he was unqualitied, either by competent knowledge or by habits of patient investigation, for the examination of the diversified subjects he attempted ; certainly not in all their bearings. He was tndy a bold and original thinker, but he lacked the amount of knowl- edge necessary for inquiry and criticism ; hence he proved but a feeble and ignorant foe of Christianity. He assailed it without nnderstanding it, and condemned without careful examination. His own testimony must forever settle his incompetency. He declared his belief in the existence of a God and a future life, but decried the sacred Scriptures as contradictory, though he had not a copy of the Bible at his command while criticising. Thus while he stated some of the common difficulties which really' exist in the Gospel history acutely, he fre- quently exposed himself for want of sound knowledge, wlien he thought that he was exposing the sacred writ- ers. But, besides all this, the grossness and scurrility of his language — in his satire and blasphemous ribaldry he is a fit parallel to Voltaire — reasonably shock the religious feeling of all Christians. Yet all his failings may easily be accounted for, and his attacks on Chris- tianity forgiven him, or should at least be covered with the mantle of charity, when we consider that Paine was soured by the incongruities of the English Establish- ment in which he had been reared ; and then, influenced by the shallow infidelity of the French Kevolutionists, quarrelled with the Bible, when it was only a quarrel with bishops. Of what Christianity really is, in its highest and broadest catholic sense, we do not believe that he had the remotest idea; and so far has the world advanced in Bible knowledge that the Tribune (N. Y., March 25, 1876) says truly: "His best arguments, if they may be so called, would not, if first published to- day, attract the slightest attention, nor would anybody think them worthy of serious refutation. The oppo- nents of Christianity are now men of larger calibre, greater knowledge, and more respectable method. They perhaps do less mischief than he did, because fewer people understand them. He was an infidel without science, erudition, or philosophy. He was simply a sharp debater, a caviller, and a technical disputant. As such he was immensely admired by minds of the same class, but it is a class for which we cannot entertain the highest respect, and to whose guidance methodical thinkers in these days will not resign themselves."