We won't spam, rent, sell, or share
your information in any way.
In yesterday’s article at AmericanVision.org, I mentioned an episode of CrossPolitic Studios’ interview with Andrew L. Seidel from the Freedom From Religion Foundation about his book The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American. In several articles, Seidel shows that he’s a fan of Thomas Paine. But which Thomas Paine?
Thomas Paine is often singled out as America’s true philosophical anti-Christian deistic founder. Paine’s Common Sense put forth arguments for independence from Great Britain, but how did Paine argue his case? What were his sources? Did he follow anti-Christian and deistic lines of argumentation like the French revolutionaries? “He constructed his arguments from materials that were familiar to the average colonist, favoring allusions to popular history, nature, and scripture rather than Montesquieu, Tacitus, and Cicero.” 
A.J. Ayer remarks that “the first argument that Paine brings against the institution of kingship is scriptural.” Ayer remarks that his appeal to the Old Testament is curious “in view of the want of respect he was later to show for the Old Testament” 
Paine declared that “government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from which the children of Israel copied the custom…. As the exalting of one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have been smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their governments yet to form. ‘Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s’ is the scriptural doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.”
Debate continues to rage over the Christian heritage of America. At least three generations of Americans have been taught from textbooks that purposely leave out the irrefutable evidence that Christianity has had a singular impact on Americas founding. The Case for America’s Christian Heritage is an information-packed book loaded with old prints and, paintings, and images
Paine has an extended discussion of Judges 8:22–23 where he describes “the King of Heaven” to be Israel’s “proper sovereign.” He then spends several pages quoting, discussing, and making application of the importance of 1 Samuel 8 to the then modern situation. He concludes this section of Common Sense with these words: “In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) by the world in blood and ashes. ’Tis a form of government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it.”
It’s the later Paine, the Paine of The Age of Reason, that secularists and atheists like Seidel turn to in support of their claim that he was an ardent critic of Christianity and organized religion. While Common Sense was written in 1776, The Age of Reason was published in early 1790, nearly 15 years later and after the drafting of the Constitution in 1787. While Americans in general embraced Common Sense — “fifty-six editions had been printed and 150,000 copies sold by the end of 1776”  —there was no support for The Age of Reason by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Rush, John Jay, and Benjamin Franklin:
Elias Boudinot’s response to Paine’s “Age of Reason.” His measured rejoinder to Paine’s work is contemplative and, contrary to Paine’s treatise, a work of sound scholarship. A great deal of thought and humility went into his well-argued reply.
As for the supposition that the other Founders embraced “The Age of Reason” or its mindset: Jefferson advised Paine never to publish the book. Benjamin Franklin, Paine’s patron and friend, gave his protégé the same advice. After reading a draft, Franklin noted: “He who spits against the wind spits in his own face. If men are wicked with religion, what would they be without it?”
* * * * *
John Adams, once a fan of Paine, having received his copy, called Paine a “blackguard” who wrote out of the depths of “a malignant heart.” And Washington, previously one of Paine’s fiercest advocates, attacked Paine’s principles in his Farewell Address (without referring to his name)  as unpatriotic and subversive. 
Adams, not an orthodox Christian by some creedal formulations, had this to say about Christianity: “The Christian religion is, above all the Religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern Times, the Religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel] Paine say what he will; it is Resignation to God, it is Goodness itself to Man.” (John Adams, The Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, ed. L.H. Butterfield [Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1962], 3:233–234).))
From the founding of the colonies to the declaration of the Supreme Court, America’s heritage is built up on the principles of the Christian religion. And yet the secularists are dismantling this foundation brick by brick, attempting to deny the very core of our national life.
Dr. Rush (1745–1813), also a critic of Paine’s later work, was a distinguished physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. He founded America’s first Bible society and wrote The Defense of the Use of the Bible in Schools. 
Paine’s later views were so opposed by the public that he spent his last years in New York in relative obscurity. “Paine had expressed a wish to be buried in a Quaker cemetery, but the Society of Friends denied his request. In attendance at his graveside on his farm were his Quaker friend Wilbert Hicks, “Madame Bonneville, her son Benjamin, and two black men who wished to pay tribute to Paine for his efforts to put an end to slavery. It is probable that a few other persons were there but no one who officially represented either France or the United States.” 
Stokes and Pfeffer, writing in Church and State in the United States, state that “For a long time Paine, notwithstanding his great contributions to the Revolutionary cause, was held low in American public opinion.”  Theodore Roosevelt’s description of Thomas Paine “as a ‘filthy little atheist’ represented all too accurately the public estimate”  of him at the time. Although Paine was not an atheist — he believed in God and immortality — the expression of his religious views in The Age of Reason put him outside the religious mainstream which was generally Christian.
The Thomas Paine of Common Sense and the Thomas Paine of The Age of Reason must be kept separate, both by time and philosophy. The later Paine cannot be superimposed on the earlier Paine. Without Paine’s biblical arguments in Common Sense the book would have been studied with great suspicion and most likely would have sunk without a trace. Mark A. Noll, formerly Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame now holds the position of Research Professor of History at Regent College, makes a similar argument:
If Paine’s Age of Reason (with its dismissive attitude toward the Old Testament) had been published before Common Sense (with its full deployment of Scripture in support of republican freedom), the quarrel with Britain may have taken a different course. It is also likely that the allegiance of traditional Christian believers to republican liberty might not have been so thoroughly cemented. And it is possible that the intimate relation between republican reasoning and trust in traditional Scripture, which became so important after the turn of the new century, would not have occurred as it did. 
Thomas Paine is a weak reed when it comes to using him as a reliable source in an attempt to demythologize the impact that the Bible had on our nation’s founding.