Introduction
Common Sense, written by Thomas Paine in 1776, is widely recognized as one of the most influential political pamphlets ever written and has been credited with inspiring the citizens of America to break away from British rule. Despite its enduring popularity, historians have disagreed on the interpretation of the pamphlet, with some arguing that Paine’s use of Biblical quotes was merely window dressing and that the work was more secular. This essay will examine this argument and provide evidence from the text to support the view that Paine’s work was more secular.
Paine’s Deist Beliefs and Reason-Based Argument
To begin, it is essential to note that Paine was a Deist. His views were grounded in a belief in a Supreme Being, but he was not a follower of any organized religion. This is evident in his work, as he emphasizes that his argument is based on reason and not on any religious doctrine. As Paine states in the opening of Common Sense, “I draw my ideas of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple anything is, the less liable it is to be disordered…” (Paine 49). Here, Paine clearly asserts that his argument is rooted in natural law and not in any particular religious doctrine.
Use of Biblical References as Historical Context
The first evidence that Paine’s work was more secular can be found in his use of Biblical quotes. Throughout the text, Paine makes numerous references to the Bible, usually to provide historical context for his argument. However, Paine does not rely on the Bible as a primary source of evidence and does not use it to provide moral or ethical justification for his argument. Instead, he uses it to give a historical ground for his argument and to illustrate the dangers of relying too heavily on religious doctrine. For example, at the beginning of Common Sense, Thomas Paine states: “But, almost a century elapsed, before the principles, by which it was governed, were generally understood” (Paine 3). This quote illustrates Paine’s use of the Bible as a historical reference rather than a moral or ethical justification source.
Rejection of the Divine Right of Kings
In addition to using the Bible as a historical reference, Paine also argues against the idea of divine right and the notion that God chooses a monarch to rule over a nation. In the text, Paine states: “The fact therefore must be that the authority, which can properly be called government, is derived from the people” (Paine 44). This quote is evidence that Paine’s argument is more secular as it does not rely on religious doctrine as a source of authority. Instead, Paine argues that government should be derived from the people, not God. This serves as additional proof that Paine’s argument is not based on religious doctrine for moral or ethical justification, indicating it is more secular in nature.
The Role of Reason in Paine’s Argument
Thomas Paine was a revolutionary thinker who advocated for the power of reason to challenge and improve society. He wrote, “The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason” (Paine 37). Paine believed in the power of reason to challenge existing conventions and create a better society. He used reason to challenge the traditional view of government, which he believed was based on superstition and arbitrary authority. He argued that government should be based on rational principles and that it should be subject to change when necessary.
Biblical References as Illustrations, Not Arguments
Furthermore, Paine’s use of Biblical quotes is often used to illustrate a point rather than to provide an argument. For example, in the third section of Common Sense, Paine quotes the Bible to support his argument for independence: “When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive…” (Paine 21).
Here, Paine is using the Bible to illustrate a point, not to make an argument. This is further exemplified in his discussion of the divine right of kings, in which he states “It is time we should remind the world, that we have already risen in arms to vindicate one kind of hereditary right, and it is high time we should never suffer another” (Paine 25). Paine is not making an argument based on religious doctrine but rather on political principles.
Natural Law and the Principle of Self-Determination
Moreover, Paine’s arguments are often grounded in natural law and the principle of self-determination. He argues that all men have an inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that governments should be formed with the consent of the governed. As Paine states, “The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which, their affections are interested” (Paine 34). Here, Paine is making an argument for freedom and self-determination for all people, not just for Americans.
Critique of Monarchy as a Divine Institution
Finally, Thomas Paine also argues against the notion that monarchy is a divine institution. In his work, the author notes: “Kings are only the managers of the people; and if government is a matter of choice, and not of indination, they have no more authority to set up a monarchy, than the people have to set up a republic.” (Paine 46). This statement further supports the idea that Paine’s argument is primarily secular, as he does not base his reasoning on religious doctrine. Instead, he asserts that monarchy is a matter of choice and not of divine right. This further demonstrates that Paine’s argument is more secular, as he does not use religious doctrine as a means of moral or ethical backing for his argument.
Appeal to Religious Readers
However, while Common Sense is secular in its tone, it still resonates with religious readers. The text resonates with religious readers due to the shared ideals of liberty and justice, as well as the referencing of biblical concepts like God’s command to Joshua. This means that while it may have been “unremittingly secular in tone,” it still spoke to the desires of religious readers. Despite being “unremittingly secular in tone”, the content still catered to the desires of religious readers.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the evidence from Common Sense indicates that Paine’s argument was primarily secular. Rather than using the Bible as a moral or ethical authority, he referenced it for historical context. He also refuted the concept of divine right and the belief that monarchs are divinely appointed to govern. Additionally, he rejected the idea of monarchy as a sacred institution. Collectively, this evidence reinforces that Paine’s reasoning was grounded in secular principles rather than religious doctrine.
Work Cited
Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. The Capitol Net Inc, 2011.