himself to the world, and that he baffled all the king's spies, is
evidence enough on his side. I will now present a few evidences in
regard to Mr. Paine. First, in regard to his wife. No one knows why they
parted, and, when interrogated, he would make the evasive answer, "I had
a cause." But, if pressed, he would bluntly respond, "It was a private
affair, and nobody's business." He also sent her money without letting
her know the source of it. Secondly: His Common Sense was kept a secret
from Dr. Franklin till published, and this when the doctor had placed
the materials in his hands toward completing a history of colonial
affairs. He says: "I expected to surprise him with a production on that
subject much earlier than he thought of, and, without informing him what
I was doing, got it ready for the press as fast as I conveniently could,
and sent him the first pamphlet that was printed off." Thirdly: He
projected a plan of going to England in disguise, and getting out a
pamphlet in secret, to rouse the English people. See what he says about
it on page 66 of this book. Fourthly: "The Address and Declaration" of
the gentlemen who met at the Thatched House tavern in 1791, in England,
was written by Mr. Paine, although he was not known, and took no part in
the meeting. He only revealed himself as the author of it after Horne
Tooke, the supposed author, had stated that Mr. Paine was the author.
But this is what he says about it: "The gentleman who signed the
address and declaration as chairman of the meeting, Mr. Horne Tooke,
being generally supposed to be the person who drew it up, and having
spoken much in commendation of it, has been jocularly accused of
praising his own work. To free him from this embarrassment, and to save
him the repeated trouble of mentioning the author, as he has not failed
to do, I make no hesitation in saying, I drew up the publication in
question," etc.--Rights of Man, note.
This is sufficient to show a trait of character which made Junius, as a
secret, a success. Without this strong ruling passion there could have
been no Junius to spring like a tiger upon king and court. But, if it
can be shown in any mental characteristic that Mr. Paine is incompatible
with that character which is stamped upon Junius and made him a success,
I will surrender the argument.
Mr. Paine says, as Horne Tooke had not failed to declare him the author,
he then acknowledged it as his own. Had Mr. Tooke been silent, you may
well be assured Mr. Paine would never have divulged it to friend or foe
of either. Since Mr. Paine above has used the expression, "Jocularly
accused of praising his own work," the reader will not fail to remember
the same characteristic in Junius, when he says of Philo Junius, and who
was also the real Junius himself, that "the subordinate character was
never guilty of the indecorum of praising his principal." This again
reminds us of Mr. Paine, when speaking of that passage in Numbers: "Now
the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were on the face of
the earth." Paine bluntly responds: "If Moses said this of himself,
instead of being the meekest of men, he was one of the most vain and
arrogant of coxcombs."
* * * * *
I now call attention to the fact that Mr. Paine and Junius, when
attacking the private character of men, both seem to delight, when the
fact would fit, in charging bastardy:
_Paine._
"A French _bastard_, landing with an armed
banditti, and establishing himself king of England
against the consent of the natives, is, in plain
terms, a very paltry rascally original. It
certainty hath no divinity in it."--Common Sense.
_Junius._
Speaking of the Duke of Grafton's ancestors:
"Those of your grace, for instance, left no
distressing examples of virtue, even to their
_legitimate_ posterity; and you may look back with
pleasure to an illustrious pedigree, in which
heraldry has not left a single good quality upon
record to insult or upbraid you. You have better
proofs of your descent, my lord, than the register
of a marriage," etc.--Let. 12.
In their appeals to posterity they were both equal and frequent. Mr.
Paine says, in closing his first Crisis: "By perseverance and fortitude
we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice and submission
the sad choice of a variety of evils, a ravaged country, a depopulated
city, habitations without safety, and slavery without hope; our homes
turned into barracks and bawdy-houses for Hessians and a _future race_
to provide for, whose fathers we shall doubt of. Look on this picture
and weep over it! and if there yet remains one thoughtless wretch who
believes it not, let him suffer it unlamented." Junius also says in
strains as pathetic and patriotic: "We owe it to _posterity_ not to
suffer their dearest inheritance to be destroyed. But if it were
possible for us to be insensible of these sacred claims, there is yet an
obligation binding on ourselves, from which nothing can acquit us, a
personal interest which we can not surrender. To alienate even our own
rights would be a crime as much more enormous than suicide as a life of
civil security and freedom is superior to a bare existence; and if life
be the bounty of Heaven, we scornfully reject the noblest part of the
gift, if we consent to surrender that certain rule of living, without
which the condition of human nature is not only miserable, but
contemptible."--Let. 20.
* * * * *
In the study of the human heart, and in a knowledge of the secret
workings of the mind they were both masters. And, had it not been that
they overapplied the nobler virtues in the common people, they would
never have gone wrong in their conclusions. They failed not in the
knowledge, but in the application of the thing. They thought it existed
where it did not. But this is the law, which they laid down as follows:
_Paine._
"It is the faculty of the human mind to become
what it contemplates, and to act in unison with
its objects."--R. M., part i.
_Junius._
"By persuading others we convince ourselves. The
passions are engaged, and create a maternal
affection in the mind which forces us to love the
cause for which we suffer." ... "When once a man
is determined to believe, the very absurdity of
the doctrine confirms him in his faith."--Let. 35.
The mental constitution of Mr. Paine made him practical. What he knew he
considered of no use to himself unless he could apply it in some way. He
finds the people oppressed by the usurpations of government, and he
urges to rebellion. He finds in America, Britain had prohibited the
importation of powder, and his knowledge of chemistry immediately
supplies the national magazines. His mechanical thought was not
satisfied until it had taken the form of an iron bridge. It was the same
disposition in Junius which kept him forever talking of "experience,"
and the "evidence of facts." I give a single parallel out of hundreds:
_Paine._
"In the progress of politics, as in the common
occurrences of life, we are not only apt to forget
the ground we have traveled over, but frequently
neglect to gather up _experience_ as we
go."--Crisis, iii.
_Junius._
"As you yourself are a singular instance of youth
without spirit, the man who defends you is a no
less remarkable example of _age_ without the
benefit of _experience_."--Let. 9.
I merely call attention to the above fact as a practical feature of the
mind common to both. In the same manner both make frequent mention of
"_reason_" and "common sense." Examples of this kind it is useless to
give, for they look out from every page.
* * * * *
I now pass to consider their doctrines and private opinions; and first
of politics:
I have heretofore proven that they were not partisans in the strict
sense of the term, yet they both had party proclivities:
_Paine._
"There is a dignity in the warm passions of a whig
which is never to be found in the cold malice of a
tory; in the one nature is only heated, in the
other poisoned. The instant the former has it in
his power to punish, he feels a disposition to
forgive, but the canine venom of the latter knows
no relief but revenge. This general distinction
will, I believe, apply in all cases, and suits as
well the meridian of England as America."--Crisis,
vi.
_Junius._
To the king: "You are not, however, destitute of
support. You have all the Jacobites, Non-jurors,
Roman Catholics, and _Tories_ of this country, and
all Scotland without exception.... And truly, sir,
if you had not lost the _Whig_ interest of
England, I should admire your dexterity in turning
the hearts of your enemies."--Let. 35.
"When I hear the undefined privileges of the
popular branch of the legislature exalted by
_tories_ and jacobites, at the expense of those
strict rights which are known to the subject and
limited by the laws, I can not but suspect that
some mischievous scheme is in agitation to destroy
both law and privilege, by opposing them to each
other."--Let. 44.
They both declare _Law to be king_:
_Paine._
"But where, say some, is the king of America? ...
So far as we approve of monarchy, in America _the
law is king_."--C. S.
_Junius._
To the king: "Nor can you ever succeed [against
Wilkes] unless he should be imprudent enough to
forfeit the protection of those _laws to which you
owe your crown_."--Let. 35.
They both express themselves on the game laws of England as follows:
_Paine._
"Had there been a house of farmers, there had been
no game laws.... The French constitution says
there shall be no game laws; that the farmer on
whose lands wild game shall be found (for it is by
the produce of those lands they are fed) shall
have a right to what he can take. In England, game
is made the property of those at whose expense it
is fed."--R. of M.
_Junius._
"As to the game laws, he [Junius] never scrupled
to declare his opinion that they are a species of
the forest laws: that they are oppressive to the
subject; and that the spirit of them is
incompatible with legal liberty: that the
penalties imposed by these laws bear no proportion
to the nature of the offense: that in particular,
the late acts to prevent dog-stealing or killing
game between sun and sun, are distinguished by
their absurdity, extravagance, and pernicious
tendency."--Let. 63.
Both express themselves the same on _laws_ in general:
_Paine._
"The government of a free country, properly
speaking, is not in the persons, _but in the
laws_."--R. of M.
_Junius._
"The submission of a free people to the executive
authority of government is no more than a
compliance with the laws which they themselves
have enacted."--Let. 1.
I would have the reader mark the fact that the above sentiment of Junius
is the first he proclaims in his book. This, it will readily be seen,
contains in itself the whole system of politics which Junius and Paine
labored to establish. From this sentiment arose the frequent expressions
of Junius, "Original rights;" "First rights;" "Sacred original rights of
the people;" "The meanest mechanic is equal to the noblest peer;" and
which Paine embodied in the expression, "Mankind are originally equal in
the order of creation." Herein also we find the foundation for that
method of both in tracing the rights of man back to their origin, and
the easy manner in distinguishing original right from usurpation. A
parallel here will make this plain:
_Paine._
"The example shows to the artificial world that
man must go back to nature for information."--R.
M., part ii. "Can we possibly suppose that if
government had originated in a right principle and
had not an interest in pursuing a wrong one, that
the world could have been in the wretched and
quarrelsome condition we have seen it? ... What
was at first plunder, assumed the softer name of
revenue, and the power originally _usurped_ they
affected to inherit."--R. M., part ii., chap. ii.
See, also, a fine specimen of this kind of
argumentation in the first chapter of Common
Sense.
_Junius._
"To establish a claim of privilege in either
house, and to distinguish _original right from
usurpation_, it must appear that it is
indispensably necessary for the performance of the
duty, and also that it has been uniformly allowed.
From the first part of this description it
follows, clearly, that whatever privilege does of
right belong to the present House of Commons, did
equally belong to the first assembly of their
predecessors, was so completely vested in them,
and might have been exercised in the same extent.
From the second we must infer that privileges
which, for several centuries, were not only never
allowed, but never even claimed by the House of
Commons, must be founded upon usurpation."--Let.
44.
In regard to America, I have shown their views to run parallel. Mr.
Paine says in Crisis vii: "The ministry and minority have both been
wrong." And Junius says in his first Letter: "But unfortunately for his
country, Mr. Grenville was at any rate to be distressed because he was
minister, and Mr. Pitt and Lord Camden were to be the patrons of America
because they were in opposition." The minority here meant no more than
the ruin of a minister and split the nation, without doing the colonies
any good. Mr. Paine also says of Lord Chatham on this same point in
Crisis viii: "An opinion hangs about the gentlemen of the minority, that
America would relish measures under their administration which she would
not from the present cabinet. On this rock Lord Chatham would have split
had he gained the helm."
I bring forward this parallel to show three things, the same political
opinions, the same views of the parties in England, and the same figures
of speech, all thrown into the same subject-matter. This, together with
the same resemblance in style, surely point to the same author.
This leads me on to speak of other private opinions. And first of
lawyers, and especially Lord Mansfield:
_Paine._
"It is difficult to know when a lawyer is to be
believed."--Let. to Erskine, Int.
_Junius._
"As a practical profession, the study of the law
requires but a moderate portion of abilities. The
learning of a pleader is usually upon a level with
his integrity. The indiscriminate defense of right
and wrong contracts the understanding, while it
corrupts the heart. Subtlety is soon mistaken for
wisdom, and impunity for virtue. If there be any
instances upon record as some there are
undoubtedly of genius and morality united in a
lawyer, they are distinguished by their
singularity, and operate as exceptions."--Let. 67.
Of those who preside at St. James': "They know no
other influence than corruption, and reckon all
their probabilities from precedent. A new case is
to them a new world, and while they are seeking
for a parallel they get lost. The talents of Lord
Mansfield can be estimated at best no higher than
those of a sophist. He understands the subtleties
but not the elegance of nature, and by continually
viewing mankind through the cold medium of the
law, never thinks of penetrating into the warmer
regions of the mind."--Crisis, vii.
"Considering the situation and abilities of Lord
Mansfield, I do not scruple to affirm, with the
most solemn appeal to God for my sincerity, that
in my judgment he is the very worst and most
dangerous man in the kingdom."--Let. 68.
The above parallel in regard to Lord Mansfield is most remarkable. Let
us consider it. Whether the statements be true or not, is immaterial.
Mr. Paine said he knew no other influence than corruption; that his
talents were those of a sophist, and that he understood the subtleties
of nature, not its elegance. Reference is here had to the Athenian
sophists, whose art it was "to make the worse appear the better reason."
This art made them talented in a certain direction, and in the
employment of it they became renowned and rich. Paine affirms that the
law had corrupted him. Junius says the practice of the law makes a bad
man, and that Mansfield was, considering the conditions, the worst man
in the kingdom. This is an opinion so singular and prominent, so rare
among men, and expressed so boldly and unqualifiedly, by both Paine and
Junius, that it furnishes a parallel which comes with positive and
telling force. Perhaps Paine and Junius were the only two writers at the
time who held this opinion. And that they should express it in the same
manner, with all the fine shades and attending peculiarities the same,
and be at the same time two persons, is a phenomenon which nature never
exhibited but once, and never will again among mankind. To remove the
weight of this evidence, something positive must be brought forward to
rebut it.
* * * * *
It will be noticed above that Mr. Paine spoke of "precedent" being the
basis of reckoning all their probabilities, and that a new case was a
new world. Here we find another parallel in opinion:
_Paine._
"Government by precedent, without any regard to
the principle of the precedent, is one of the
vilest systems that can be set up. In numerous
instances, the precedent ought to operate as a
warning, and not as an example, and requires to be
shunned instead of imitated; but, instead of this,
precedents are taken in the lump, and put at once
for constitution and for _law_."--R. of M., part
ii., chap. iv.
_Junius._
"Precedents, in opposition to principle, have
little weight with Junius, but he thought it
necessary to meet the ministry on their own
ground."--Let. 16, note.
"I am no friend to the doctrine of precedents,
exclusive of right, though lawyers often tell us
that whatever has been done once may lawfully be
done again."--Preface.
Many examples could be given of the above likeness, but these are
sufficient.
* * * * *
I submit the following in regard to Lord North:
_Paine._
"As for Lord North, it is his happiness to have in
him more philosophy than sentiment, for he bears
flogging like a top, and sleeps the better for it.
His punishment becomes his support, for while he
suffers the lash for his sins, he keeps himself up
by twirling about. In politics, he is a good
arithmetician, and in every thing else _nothing at
all_."--Crisis, vii.
_Junius._
"The management of the king's affairs in the House
of Commons can not be more disgraced than it has
been. A leading minister repeatedly called down
for absolute ignorance, ridiculous motions
ridiculously withdrawn, deliberate plans
disconcerted, a week's preparation of graceful
oratory lost in a moment, give us some though not
adequate ideas of Lord North's parliamentary
abilities and influence. Yet, before he had the
misfortune of being Chancellor of the Exchequer,
he was neither an object of derision to his
enemies, nor of melancholy pity to his friends. I
hope he [Grafton] will not rely on the fertility
of Lord North's genius for finance; _his lordship
is yet to give us the first proof of his
abilities_."--Let. 1.
Mr. Paine, no doubt, had in his mind this passage of Junius when he
described him as a twirling top, a good arithmetician in _politics_, but
in every thing else nothing at all.
* * * * *
In speaking of the misconduct of England, they both make it commence at
the termination of the Seven Years' War, and speak of the time reckoned
from the beginning of the year 1763. I will notice Junius first, so as
to present this parallel in chronological order. He says in his first
Letter, written Jan. 21, 1769: "Outraged and oppressed as we are, this
nation will not bear, _after a six years'_ peace, to see new millions,"
etc. On February 14, 1770, he says: "_At the end of seven years_ we are
loaded with a debt," etc. This is the method, in regard to time Junius
always employs when speaking of the distress and calamities of England.
Let us now pass over to America, and we find, near the close of 1778,
Mr. Paine uses the same method and language, when addressing the people
of England in Crisis, vii: "A period of sixteen years of misconduct and
misfortune is certainly long enough for any one nation to suffer under."
He elsewhere uses the same language in the same way, which shows a
mental habit peculiar to both.
* * * * *
The same opinion of court and courtier has elsewhere been shown, but a
definite parallel or two may not be out of place:
_Paine._
"For the caterpillar principles of all courts and
courtiers are alike."--Rights of Man, part i.
_Junius._
"Where birth and fortune are united, we expect the
noble pride and independence of a man of spirit,
not the servile, humiliating complaisance of a
courtier."--Let. 1.
They held the same opinion of oaths:
_Paine._
"If a government requires the support of oaths, it
is a sign that it is not worth supporting, and
ought not to be supported."--R. of M., part ii,
chap. iv.
_Junius._
"He [the minister] is the tenant of the day, and
has no interest in the inheritance. The sovereign
himself is bound by other obligations, and ought
to look forward to a superior, a permanent
interest. His paternal tenderness should remind
him how many hostages he has given to society. The
ties of nature come powerfully in aid of _oaths_
and protestations."--Let. 38.
They place _personal interest_ above strict _moral right_, as a means of
improvement:
_Paine._
"As to mere theoretical reformation, I have never
preached it up. The most effectual process is that
of improving the condition of man by means of his
interest, and it is on this ground that I take my
stand."--R. of M., part ii, chap. v.
_Junius._
"It will be said, that I deny at one moment what I
would allow at another. To this I answer,
generally, that human affairs are in no instance
governed by strict, positive right.... My
premises, I know, will be denied in argument, but
every man's conscience tells him they are true. It
remains then to be considered whether it be for
the _interest of the people_," etc.--Let. 44.
The reader will here see a mental characteristic the same, and a
philosophy growing therefrom which is boldly affirmed by both.
* * * * *
That we gather strength by antagonism, and in this way the vicious are
often brought into notice and become successful, is a prominent fact
noticed by both.
_Paine._
"Those whose sentiments are injudicious or
unfriendly, will cease of themselves, unless too
much pains is bestowed upon their conversion."--C.
S., Int.
_Junius._
"Mr. Wilkes, if not persecuted, will soon be
forgotten."--Let. 11. See also Let. 1 and 35.
I have heretofore given examples of the above to prove another fact.
* * * * *
I now call attention to the passion of suspicion:
_Paine._
"I am not of a disposition inclined to suspicion.
It is, in its nature, a mean and cowardly passion,
and, upon the whole, even admitting error into the
case, it is better; I am sure it is more generous
to be wrong on the side of confidence, than on the
side of suspicion. _But_, I know as a fact, that
the English government.... Their
anti-revolutionary doctrines invite suspicion even
against one's will, and in spite of one's charity
to believe well of them."--Let. to Samuel Adams.
_Junius._
"The situation of this country is alarming enough
to rouse the attention of every man who pretends
to a concern for the public welfare. Appearances
justify _suspicion_; and when the safety of a
nation is at stake, suspicion is a just ground of
inquiry."--Let. 1.
The above is strong language in regard to _suspicion_. Paine thinks it
mean and cowardly if not well founded, and Junius thinks it is
justifiable when the safety of a nation is at stake. This is an uncommon
sentiment, and, if Mr. Paine was Junius, he is found repeating himself
after an interval of thirty-four years.
In regard to thinking for one's self, Junius says of Benson, in
withering rebuke to Lord Mansfield, who had committed him for contempt:
"He had the _impudence_ to pretend to _think for himself_." Paine
exclaims: "Why is man afraid to think?"
* * * * *
There is a fact now in regard to the English army which is of great
weight in my argument relative to a change of opinion. Junius always
spoke highly of the army, while he sometimes censured individual
officers. Speaking of the regiments of the guards, he says: "Far be it
from me to insinuate the most distant reflection upon the army. On the
contrary, I honor and esteem the profession, and if these gentlemen were
better soldiers I am sure they would be better subjects." Mr. Paine,
just nine years afterward, when in America, and fighting against the
English army, says of the English people: "They are made to believe that
their generals and armies differ from those of other nations, and have
nothing of rudeness or barbarity in them. They suppose them what they
wish them to be; they feel a disgrace in thinking otherwise. There was a
time when I felt the same prejudices, and reasoned from the same errors;
but experience--sad and painful experience--has taught me better. What
the conduct of former armies was I know not, but what the conduct of the
present is I well know--it is low, cruel, indolent, and
profligate."--Crisis, vii. This is a species of dovetailing the life and
opinions of Junius into those of Mr. Paine. But the reader will see
there is no effort on my part. All I ask is for truth to take its
course. It would be beneath the dignity of a scientific criticism to
stoop to artifice.
* * * * *
I wish now to bring forward a complex parallel, to show that pride of
character which would not stoop to the meanness of party politics, and
to show, also, their opinion of bribery at elections, and the origin of
"military governments" in England.
"It is difficult," says Mr. Paine, "to account for the origin of charter
and corporation towns, unless we suppose them to have arisen out of, or
having been connected with, some species of garrison service. The times
in which they began justify this idea. The generality of these towns
have been garrisons, and the corporations were charged with the care of
the gates of the town when no military garrison was present. Their
refusing or granting admission to strangers, which has produced the
custom of giving, selling, and buying freedom, has more of the nature of
garrison authority than civil government."--Rights of Man, part ii,
chap. 5, note.
I am now prepared to give the parallels:
_Paine._
"As one of the houses of the English Parliament is
in a great measure made up by elections from these
corporations, and as it is unnatural that a pure
stream would flow from a foul fountain, its vices
are but a continuation of the vices of its origin.
A man of moral honor and good political principles
can not submit to the mean _drudgery_ and
disgraceful arts by which such elections are
carried."
_Junius._
"But it seems the sale of a civil employment was
not sufficient, and _military governments_, which
were intended for the support of worn-out
veterans, must be thrown into the scale to defray
the extensive bribery of a contested
election."--Let. 34.
"But is there no honorable way to serve the public
without engaging in personal quarrels with
insignificant individuals, or submitting to the
_drudgery_ of canvassing votes for an
election."--Let. 53.
Says Mr. Paine: "_I love method._" This, every action proved. His
business transactions, his political plans, the productions of his pen,
were all in design and execution methodical. In dedicating his life to
the good of mankind, he studied method in the use of his great mental
powers. He never set about doing any thing without a plan and
specifications. He carried in the brain the ideal of the work he was to
give material shape and substance. His plans were always well-digested
and often long in maturing. He, for example, anticipated the revolution,
and proceeded to fill the public arsenals with powder. He then brought
out Common Sense, when public opinion was decidedly against a
declaration of independence, to educate that public sentiment in favor
of it. This produced the desired effect, and when war was fairly begun
upon a proper basis and plan, he struck the enemy at the proper time and
place with an occasional Crisis. The first Crisis he wrote, for example,
won a battle for the Union. After the war was over, he went to England
and brought out his Rights of Man, laboring in the same lines and
advocating the very principles of Junius. There is not a political
principle expressed in Junius which was not again reproduced in Rights
of Man. But method is stamped upon every production of his pen. Take,
for example, Common Sense. The design was to bring public sentiment up
to a declaration of independence. Now if we examine the method of the
work, we will find the steps like a geometrical demonstration, from
first principles to conclusion. In Common Sense he first convinces the
reason, then inflames the passions, and lastly destroys dissension by a
stirring, manly, patriotic appeal. The work proper is divided into four
parts.
I. Of the origin and design of government. Here the first principles are
laid down, and are such as to convince the mind of every man capable of
thinking. He then shows that the English constitution is not founded
upon such principles; and that a people seeking political happiness
while clinging to such a rotten government, is like a man seeking
connubial happiness while he is attached to a prostitute.
II. Of monarchy and hereditary succession. Here he brings out his great
political axiom, _the equality of man in the order of creation_, and
then ridicules the pretentions of kings, and demolishes the whole fabric
of "sacred titles" by an appeal to sacred and profane history, to the
rights of man, to his reason, to his affections, and to posterity. He
has now prepared the mind of the American reader for the reception of
truth, and he brings forward--
III. Thoughts on the present state of the American affairs.
He begins by saying: "In the following pages I offer nothing more than
simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense." It is now he warms
with the subject, and having before prepared the mind with exalted views
of government and with the axioms upon which all just governments are
founded; having before shown that all legislative powers are derived
from the people, and founded in the consent of the governed; having, in
short, announced his bill of rights, he now comes forward with an
indictment against England. This is full and complete, and by the time
the reader has done with it he is then prepared for his final argument,
which is--
IV. The ability of America to acquire and maintain her independence.
He afterward added an appendix, in which he recounts the principal
causes which impel the colonies to a separation.
The reader will remark the _method_ of the whole piece. He takes hold of
the mind by strategy at first, and then places before it principles,
facts, causes, and consequences, till he has made it entirely his own.
If now the reader will return to the first Letter of Junius, he will
find an admirable example of the same method. As to _method_, the two
pieces are every way identical. Did a person not study this Letter of
Junius, he would perhaps fail to get, at first, the exact likeness which
Mr. Paine has so completely reproduced in Common Sense, as an artistic
performance.
Junius' Letter to the king is also an example of the same method. There
is, first, the bill of rights, and then the indictment. We find here the
same strategy, which takes possession of the mind of the people, the
same method to place the writer above and beyond selfish motives, the
same foundation of principles, the same superstructure of argument, and
the same method of bringing the reader to the conclusions. Herein we
find _policy_.
* * * * *
The policy of Mr. Paine made him extremely cautious, and he weighed well
the consequences of speaking to the public, studying especially the
proper time. This was the habit of Junius also. I will now give a few
examples: When the civil laws of England had been trampled on by the
military, in the case of General Gansel, Junius delayed speaking about
it. He says: "Had I taken it up at an earlier period, I should have been
accused of an uncandid, malignant precipitation, as if I watched for an
unfair advantage against the ministry, and would not allow them a
reasonable time to do their duty. They now stand without excuse."--Let.
30. He then proceeds to strike the ministry "hip and thigh." In Letter
44 he also mentions the fact of having been silent, not from a "shameful
indifference," but because he had determined to "not deliver a hasty
opinion on a matter of so much delicacy and importance."
The same constitutional caution is exhibited in Mr. Paine. Upon national
honor, in Crisis xii, dated May, 1782, he says: "In March, 1780, I
published part of the Crisis, No. viii, in the newspapers, but did not
conclude it in the following papers, and the remainder has lain by me
till the present day. There appeared about that time some disposition in
the British cabinet to cease the further prosecution of the war, and as
I had formed my opinion that whenever such a design should take place,
it would be accompanied by a dishonorable proposition to America
respecting France, I had suppressed the remainder of that number, not to
expose the baseness of any such proposition." He now incorporates it in
this number, and then follows with one of the noblest productions on
national honor which it has been the fortune of man to write.
* * * * *
I now give an opinion on the principles of the English constitution:
_Paine._
"A government on the principles on which
constitutional governments arising out of society
are established, can not have the right of
altering itself. If it had, it would be
arbitrary. It might make itself what it pleased;
and whenever such a right is set up, it shows that
there is no constitution. The act by which the
English parliament empowered itself to sit for
seven years, shows there is no constitution in
England. It might, by the same self-authority,
have to sat any greater number of years, or for
life."--R. of M., part i.
_Junius._
"There can not be a doctrine more fatal to the
liberty and property we are contending for, than
that which confounds the idea of a supreme and an
arbitrary legislature.... If the majority can
disfranchise ten boroughs, why not twenty--why not
the whole kingdom? Why should not they make their
own seats in parliament for life? When the
septennial act passed, the legislature did what,
apparently and palpably, they had no power to
do."--Let. 68.
Although the above doctrine that the people, not the legislature, are
supreme, is not new, yet it was rarely asserted in the time of Paine,
and renders the above parallel strong and peculiar. Even the same
language is used in making the same application to the septennial act,
which might as well have empowered the members of parliament to sit _for
life_.
* * * * *
Here is a parallel on the opinion of the _jobbing_ spirit of courtiers:
_Paine._
"Every nation that does not govern itself, is
governed as a _job_. England has been the prey of
_jobs_ ever since the revolution."--R. of M., part
ii, chap, v., note.
_Junius._
To Draper: "It would have been more decent in you
to have called this dishonorable transaction by
its true name, a _job_, to accommodate two persons
by particular interest and management at the
castle."--Let. 7.
Both Paine and Junius frequently give vent to their detestation of
gambling and gamblers. A single case in point is sufficient:
_Paine._
"Those who knew the savage obstinacy of the king,
and the jobbing, _gambling_ spirit of the court,
predicted the fate of the petition."--Crisis, iii.
_Junius._
To Bedford: "His own honor would have forbidden
him from mixing his private pleasures or
conversation with jockeys, _gamesters_,
blasphemers, gladiators, and buffoons."--Let. 23.
See, also, Let. 14.
They both have the same opinion of the _theater_; but as the proof of
this is only circumstantial, I will not cumber these pages with it. We
know that Paine was a Quaker upon this point; and Junius contemptuously
addresses Garrick, the actor, "Now mark me, _vagabond_! keep to your
_pantomimes_," etc.
* * * * *
I now pass to consider their religious opinions. And, first, their views
of God:
_Paine._
"The Almighty hath implanted in us these
unextinguishable feelings for good and wise
purposes."--C. S.
"The country was the gift of Heaven, and God alone
is their Lord and sovereign."--Crisis, v.
"From such men and such masters may the gracious
hand of Heaven preserve America."
_Junius._
"Grateful as I am to the good Being whose bounty
has imparted to me this reasoning intellect,"
etc.--Let. 68.
"They acknowledged the hand of Providence in the
descent of the crown upon the head of a true
Stuart." [Spoken in irony.]--Let. 49.
"If they should no longer appeal to the creature
of the constitution, but to that high Being, who
gave them the rights of humanity, whose gifts it
were sacrilege to surrender, let me ask you sir,"
etc.--Let. 35.
"The will of God hath parted us, and the deed is
registered for eternity."--Crisis, v.
"Even the distance at which the Almighty hath
placed America and England, is a strong and
_natural_ proof that the authority of the one over
the other was never the design of Heaven.
"I do not scruple to affirm, with the most solemn
appeal to God for my sincerity."--Let. 68.
"The people also found it necessary to appeal to
Heaven in their turn."--Let. 9.
"The reformation was preceded by the discovery of
America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to
open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future
years, when home should afford neither friendship
nor safety.
"I am as confident, as I am that God governs the
world, that America will never be happy till she
gets clear of foreign dominion."--Crisis, i.
"And if life be the bounty of Heaven, we scorn
fully reject the noblest part of the gift,"
etc.--Let. 20.
"If when the opportunity offers itself you neglect
to do your duty to yourselves and to posterity, to
_God_ and your country," etc.--Dedication.
Of Providence they further say:
_Paine._
"But Providence, who best knows how to time her
misfortunes as well as her immediate favors, chose
this to be the time, and who dare dispute
it?"--Crisis, iii.
"To the _interposition of Providence_ and her
blessings on our endeavors, and not to British
benevolence are we indebted for the short chain
that limits your ravages."--Crisis, vi.
"To deny such a right would be a kind of atheism
against nature, and the beat answer to such an
objection will be: 'The fool hath said in his
heart there is no God!'"--Crisis, iii.
_Junius._
"If it should be the will of Providence to afflict
him with a domestic misfortune," etc.--Let. 23.
"The next is a most remarkable instance of the
goodness of Providence."--Let. 66.
"If by the immediate _interposition of Providence_
it were possible for us to escape a crisis so full
of terror and despair, posterity will not believe
the history of the present times."--Let. 1.
Mr. Paine wrote the Age of Reason as an argument against atheism on the
one hand and fanaticism on the other. This he says himself.
* * * * *
I will now give the language of Mr. Paine on religion, infidelity,
atheism, fanaticism, and morality, and then subscribe the language of
Junius.
{163}In his discourse to the Theophilanthropists of Paris, Mr. Paine says:
"Religion has two principal enemies--_fanaticism and infidelity_, or
that which is called _atheism_. The first requires to be combatted by
reason or morality, the other by natural philosophy." In opposing
atheism he makes intelligent force the God of the universe. This is his
language: "_God is the power_, or first cause, _nature is the law_, and
_matter is the subject acted upon_." That is, there is a duality in the
universe--_force_ and _matter_; and the action of _force_ on matter
produces the _laws of nature_, or, every phenomenon is produced by the
motion of matter. He founds his argument against atheism on the _motion_
of matter, and elaborates it in his clear and forcible style, and then
says: "Where will infidelity--where will atheism find cause for this
astonishing velocity of motion, never ceasing, never varying, and which
is the preservation of the earth in its orbit? It is not by reasoning
from an acorn to an oak, or from any change in the state of matter on
the surface of the earth, that this can be accounted for. _Its cause is
not to be found in matter, nor in any thing we call nature._ The atheist
who affects to reason, and the fanatic who rejects reason, plunge
themselves alike into inextricable difficulties. The one perverts the
sublime and enlightening study of natural philosophy into a deformity of
absurdities by not reasoning to the end, the other loses himself in the
obscurity of metaphysical theories, and dishonors the Creator by
treating the study of his works with contempt. The one is a
half-rational of whom there is some hope, the other is a visionary to
whom we must be charitable."
I wish the reader to compare with the last sentence above the following
extracts from Junius, to be found in Letters 44 and 35: "The opinions of
these men are too absurd to be easily renounced. Liberal minds are open
to conviction, liberal doctrines are capable of improvement. _There are
proselytes from atheism, but none from superstition._" "When once a man
is determined to believe, the very absurdity of the doctrine confirms
him in his faith."
* * * * *
But Junius, like Paine, was a _religious_ man. In Letter 56, he says: "I
know such a man; my lord, I know you both, _and, with the blessing of
God_ (_for I, too, am religious_), the people of England shall know you
as well as I do."
As Mr. Paine has been misunderstood by the religious world, and as so
much has been said against his religion that a prejudice deep and bitter
now rests on the world against him, I will give a couple of extracts
from his Rights of Man on this point. I confess that my own prejudices
were so great against him (and I thought myself quite liberal), that
they would not suffer me to read his works till quite recently. Such is
the tyranny of religious instruction. The first extract is from the
first part. In a note, he says: "There is a single idea, which, if it
strikes rightly upon the mind, either in a legal or a religious sense,
will prevent any man, or any body of men, or any government, from going
wrong on the subject of religion; which is, that before any human
institutions of government were known in the world, there existed, if I
may so express it, a compact between God and man from the beginning of
time; and that, as the relation and condition which man in his
individual person stands in toward his Maker can not be changed by any
human laws or human authority, that religious devotion, which is a part
of this compact, can not so much as be made a subject of human laws; and
that all laws must conform themselves to the prior-existing compact, and
not assume to make the compact conform to the laws, which, besides being
human, are subsequent thereto. The first act of man, when he looked
around and saw himself a creature which he did not make, and a world
furnished for his reception, must have been devotion; and devotion must
ever continue sacred to every individual man, as it appears right to
him, and governments do mischief by interfering."
The next extract is from part second, near its close, and I would call
the attention of the reader to the beauty of the allegory:
"But as religion is very improperly made a political machine, and the
reality of it is thereby destroyed, I will conclude this work with
stating in what light religion appears to me.
"If we suppose a large family of children on any particular day, or
particular occasion, made it a custom to present to their parents some
token of their affection and gratitude, each of them would make a
different offering, and most probably in a different manner. Some would
pay their congratulations in themes of verse and prose, others by some
little devices, as their genius dictated or according to what they
thought would please; and, perhaps, the least of all, not able to do any
of those things, would ramble into the garden or the field and gather
what it thought the prettiest flower it could find, though perhaps it
might be but a simple weed. The parents would be more gratified by such
a variety than if the whole of them had acted on a concerted plan, and
each had made exactly the same offering. This would have the cold
appearance of contrivance, or the harsh one of control. But of all
unwelcome things nothing would more afflict the parent than to know that
the whole of them had afterwards gotten together by the ears, boys and
girls, fighting, and reviling, and abusing each other about which was
the best or the worst present.
"Why may we not suppose that the great Father of all is pleased with a
variety of devotion; and that the greatest offense we can act is that by
which we seek to torment and render each other miserable? For my own
part I am fully satisfied that what I am now doing with an endeavor to
conciliate mankind, to render their condition happy, to unite nations
that have hitherto been enemies, and to extirpate the horrid practice of
war, and break the chains of slavery and oppression, is estimable in his
sight, and being the best service I can perform, I act it cheerfully.
"I do not believe that any two men, on what are called doctrinal points,
think alike who think at all."
[And this, my reader, is Thomas Paine who hath spoken. I would like to
have Henry Ward Beecher, after he has read this book, take the above
passage as a text and preach a sermon from it.]
I now call attention to a few parallels:
_Paine._
"A narrow system of politics like a narrow system
of religion, is calculated only to sour the
temper, and be at variance with mankind."--Crisis,
iii.
_Junius._
"Superstition is certainly not the characteristic
of this age; yet some men are bigoted in politics
who are infidels in religion."--Let. 67.
"Secluded from the world, attached from his
infancy to one set of persons and one set of
ideas, he can neither open his heart to new
connections nor his mind to better information. A
character of this sort is the soil fittest to
produce that obstinate bigotry in politics and
religion which begins with a meritorious
sacrifice of the understanding and finally
conducts the monarch and the martyr to the
block."--Let. 39.
Junius is here speaking of the king, who with a narrow understanding
would naturally have a narrow system of politics and religion. But
again:
_Paine._
"We persecute no man, neither will we abet in the
persecution of any man for religion's
sake."--Crisis, iii.
_Junius._
"The fundamental principles of Christianity may
still be preserved though every zealous sectary
adheres to his own exclusive doctrine, and pious
ecclesiastics make it part of their religion to
persecute one another."--Let. 58.
"The writer of this is one of those few who never
dishonors religion, either by ridiculing or
caviling at any denominations whatsoever. To God
and not to man are all men accountable on the
score of religion."--Epistle to the Quakers.
"If I thought Junius capable of uttering a
disrespectful word of the religion of his country
I should be the first to renounce and give him up
to the public contempt and indignation."--Let. 54.
Above it is Philo Junius who is speaking; but the reader will remember
he is the real Junius. He had been attacked for his impiety, and he puts
Philo Junius forward to defend himself. The reader can not fail to
notice the same hand in the last parallel. Paine says: "The _writer_ of
this is one of _those few_ who never dishonors religion" by abusing the
professors of it. And he never did. Junius ridiculed the ceremonial in
the Catholic Church which denies the cup to the laity; and of this he
says: "It is, in this country, as fair an object of ridicule as
_transubstantiation_, or any other part of Lord Peter's History in the
Tale of the Tub." This reminds me of what Paine says of popery and
Peter: "A man hath as good reason to believe that there is as much of
kingcraft as priestcraft in withholding the scripture from the public in
popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the popery of
government."--Common Sense. In regard to Peter, we see the same
temptation to touch his pen with satire and ridicule, and the passage
may be found in Rights of Man, part first. It is as follows: "I will
quote Mr. Burke's catalogue of barriers that he has set up between man
and his maker. Putting himself in the character of a herald, he says:
'We fear God; we look with _awe_ to kings; with affection to
parliaments; with duty to magistrates; with reverence _to_ priests; and
with respect to nobility.' Mr. Burke has forgot to put in chivalry. _He
has also forgot to put in Peter._"
* * * * *
They both considered it true that there is a wide difference between
_piety_ and _morality_. Paine himself says (and it is the noblest
sentiment ever uttered by man): "MY COUNTRY IS THE WORLD, AND MY
RELIGION IS TO DO GOOD." Junius frequently puts piety and morality in
antithesis, as the following examples will show: "They care not what
injustice is practiced upon a man whose _moral character_ they _piously_
think themselves obliged to condemn."--Let. 39. "The _unfeigned piety_,
the _sanctified religion_ of George the Third have taught him to
new-model the civil forces of the State. _Corruption glitters in the
van_," etc. Then, speaking of some of his predecessors, he says: "They
were kings or gentlemen, not hypocrites or priests. They were at the
head of the Church, but did not know the value of their office. They
said their prayers without ceremony, and had too little of priestcraft
in their understanding to reconcile the _sanctimonious forms_ of
religion with the utter destruction of the _morality_ of the
people."--Let. 55.
* * * * *
But Mr. Paine was the inveterate enemy to priestcraft as well as
kingcraft. His whole life was spent in waging war against the two. Let
us now see what Junius thought of the former. I have shown him to run
parallel with Mr. Paine in the latter.
Junius says: "The resentment of a priest is implacable: no sufferings
can soften; no penitence can appease."--Let. 53. In speaking of the Rev.
Mr. Horne, he says: "No, my lord; it was the solitary, vindictive malice
of a monk, brooding over the infirmities of his friends, until he
thought they quickened into public life, and feasting with a rancorous
rapture upon the sordid catalogue of his distresses. Now let him go back
to his cloister. The Church is a proper retreat for him; in his
principles he is already a bishop. The mention of this man has moved me
from my natural moderation."--Let. 49. Again:
"The priesthood are accused of misinterpreting the scriptures. Mr. Horne
has improved on his profession. He alters the text, and creates a
refutable doctrine of his own."--Let. 53.
The above passages can not be mistaken for Mr. Paine's spirit, style,
and language. These tell us they are his with much more truth than a
name attached to any writing tells us its author.
* * * * *
It seems they both had the same opinion of a _Methodist_:
_Paine._
"But when he [man] multiplies his creed with
imaginary things, he forces his mind, and pretends
to believe what he does not believe. This is, in
general, the case with the _Methodists_--their
religion is all creed and no morals."--Let. to Mr.
Dean.
_Junius._
"You meanly evaded the question, and, instead of
the explicit firmness and decision of a king, gave
us nothing but the misery of a ruined grazier, and
the whining piety of a _Methodist_."--Let. 36.
Now the reader will recall the parallel I gave in regard to never
dishonoring religion by saying any thing against particular forms or
denominations. With the exception of the Catholic Church, this is the
only instance which has fallen under my eye; and it seems they had such
a disliking to Methodism, a sarcasm must be let loose upon it. Trifling
as this instance may seem, there is great force in its being solitary,
and apparently contradictory to what they both before affirmed in
general. Such an instance has, in fact, more weight than a score of
parallels on common characteristics, for it shows a peculiar and strong
bias in a particular direction.
* * * * *
Of the term Christian there is no positive ground for a parallel,
because it is one of no definite meaning. We call ourselves, as a
nation, Christians; yet we are divided into a hundred forms of
{172}religion, and many of them in the articles of faith contradictory and
antagonistic. Yet, in the fundamental principles of morality, we are, in
common with all civilized races, agreed. The Christian religion happens
to belong to the highest civilization, and we frequently use the term as
synonymous with the _morality_ of this civilization. But when we come to
define strictly according to the theological import of the word, there
are many of us who are not Christians. In the former sense, Mr. Paine
and Junius were Christians; in the latter sense, they were not. And now
for the proof. Junius says, in Letter 15, to the Duke of Grafton: "It is
not, indeed, the least of the thousand contradictions which attend you,
that a man marked to the world by the grossest violation of ceremony and
decorum, should be the first servant of a court in which _prayers are
morality_, and _kneeling is religion_." For this, and his attacks on the
priesthood, and his frequently putting piety in antithesis to morality,
he was at last accused of being an impious and irreligious man. He now
puts Philo Junius forward to explain his religious views, who says, in
Letter 54: "These candid critics never remember any thing he says in
honor of our holy religion, though it is true that one of his leading
arguments is made to rest 'upon the internal evidence which the purest
of all religions carries with it.' I quote his words, and conclude from
them that he is a true and hearty Christian--_in substance_, not in
_ceremony_--though possibly he may not agree with my reverend lords the
bishops, or with the head of the Church, 'that prayers are morality, or
that kneeling is religion.'"
That is, Junius was a Christian who, upon moral principles, did not say
his prayers, and who thought that forms were no part of religion. In
other words, if the highest morality was Christianity, he claimed to be
a Christian, and would not stoop "to reconcile the sanctimonious forms
of religion with the utter destruction of morality."
This, too, was Mr. Paine's Christianity. In a national and moral sense
he uses the term with approbation, but when in a theological sense he
disowns it. He says, in Crisis, ii: "This ingratitude may suit a tory,
or the _unchristian_ peevishness of a fallen Quaker, but none else." In
Crisis, i, he says: "I wish, with all the devotion of a Christian, that
the names of whig and tory may never more be mentioned." To the Quakers
he says: "Call not coldness of soul religion, nor put the _bigot_ in the
place of the _Christian_." In Common Sense he says: "For myself, I fully
and conscientiously believe that it is the will of the Almighty that
there should be a diversity of religious opinions among us. It affords a
larger field for our Christian kindness." And again: "This new world
hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious
liberty from every part of Europe.... In this extensive quarter of the
globe, we forget the narrow limits of three hundred and sixty miles (the
extent of England), and carry our friendship on a larger scale; _we
claim brotherhood with every European Christian, and triumph in the
generosity of the sentiment_."
The above are a few of the many passages in which he indorses
Christianity. But Christian here means only its moral phase or
principles, and these principles exalted by the feeling of universal
brotherhood. But in a theological sense he uses the term very
differently, and by keeping this fact in view, he is readily understood,
and there is only the contradiction which the use of the word by common
consent carries with it. In the Age of Reason, Conclusion, he says: "Of
all the systems of religion that ever were invented there is none more
derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to
reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called
Christianity."
* * * * *
They both had the same views of Jesus. Mr. Paine says in the Age of
Reason, part i: "Nothing that is here said can apply, even with the most
distant disrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a
virtuous and amiable man. The morality that he preached and practiced
was of the most benevolent kind; and though similar systems of morality
had been preached by Confucius and by some of the Greek philosophers
many years before, and by the Quakers since, and by many good men in all
ages, it has not been exceeded by any.... He preached most excellent
morality, and the equality of man; but he preached also against the
corruptions and avarice of the Jewish priests, and this brought upon him
the hatred and vengeance of the whole order of the priesthood." And
between the Romans and the Jews "this virtuous reformer and
revolutionist lost his life."
Junius, near the close of his last letter but one, boldly affirms Jesus
a _man_. He says: "The holy author of our religion was seen in the
company of sinners, but it was his gracious purpose to convert them from
their sins. _Another man_ [the king], who, in the _ceremonies_ of our
faith, might give lessons to the great enemy of it [the devil] upon
different principles, keeps much the same company."
* * * * *
Neither Mr. Paine nor Junius were superstitious. And first of Paine. In
Crisis, i, he says: "I have as little _superstition_ in me as any man
living, but my secret opinion has ever been, and still is, that God
Almighty will not give up, to military destruction, a people," etc.
Junius says, in Letter 36, note: "Every coward pretends to be
planet-struck." And in Letter 49, satirizing Lord Bute, he says: "When
that noxious planet approaches England, he never fails to bring plague
and pestilence along with him." In Letter 67 he says: "Superstition is
certainly not the characteristic of this age; yet some men are bigoted
in politics who are _infidels_ in religion. I do not despair of making
them ashamed of their credulity."
* * * * *
Above, Junius also casts an aspersion upon the term _infidel_. Mr. Paine
was very tender upon this point, and could not bear to be taunted with
_infidelity_. He says: "Infidelity is believing falsely. If what
Christians believe is not true, it is the Christians that are the
infidels."--Remarks on R. Hall's sermon. In the Examination of the
Prophecies, he concludes with this sentence, emphasized as follows: "HE
THAT BELIEVES IN THE STORY OF CHRIST, IS AN INFIDEL TO GOD." He also
defines infidelity as being unfaithful to one's own convictions. In the
Age of Reason, part i, he says: "Infidelity consists in _professing_ to
believe what he does not believe." He also uses the word as synonymous
with atheist, in his Discourse to the Theophilanthropists, as will be
seen by reference to page 163 of this book.
* * * * *
I have heretofore given the views of Junius on _Prayer_. See page 172.
It now remains to give Mr. Paine's views. In his Letter to Samuel Adams
he says: "A man does not serve God when he prays, for it is himself he
is trying to serve; and as to hiring or paying men to pray, as if the
Deity needed instruction, it is, in my opinion, an abomination."
* * * * *
They both believe in the divine justice of retribution and future
punishment. Junius says: "The divine justice of retribution seems now to
have begun its progress. Deliberate treachery entails punishment upon
the traitor. There is no possibility of escaping it."--Let. 66. "A
death-bed repentance seldom reaches to restitution."--Dedication.
Mr. Paine says, in Crisis, ii, to Lord Howe: "How many you have thus
privately sacrificed we know not, and the account can only be settled in
another world." And in Crisis, v, to the same man, he says: "You may,
perhaps, be unwilling to be serious, but this destruction of the goods
of Providence, this havoc of the human race, and this sowing the world
with mischief, must be accounted for to him who made and governs it."
But I will give a positive affirmation of the fact. In the Age of
Reason, near the close of the Second Part, he says: "The existence of an
Almighty power is sufficiently demonstrated to us.... We must know,
also, that the power that called us into being can, if he pleases, and
when he pleases, call us to account for the manner in which we have
lived here; and therefore, without seeking any other motive for the
belief, it is rational to believe that he will, for we know beforehand
that he can.... The probability that we may be called to account
hereafter, will, to a reflecting mind, have the influence of belief; for
it is not our belief or unbelief that can make or unmake the fact. As
this is the state we are in, and which it is proper we should be in, as
free agents, it is the fool only, and not the philosopher or even the
prudent man, that would live as if there were no God."
* * * * *
Religiously, he can quite properly be classed with Theodore Parker. He
stands close at his side, and, having preceded him, a shoulder higher.
Yet, in this regard, Mr. Parker treats him with contempt.
* * * * *
The reader will be pleased to read the following letters; the one from
Horace Seaver to Mr. Parker, and the reply:
_Boston_, January 11, 1843.
REV. AND DEAR SIR:--As chairman of the committee of arrangement
for the celebration of Thomas Paine's birth-day in this city, on
the 30th instant, I am instructed to perform the highly pleasing
duty of soliciting the honor of your company at the dinner; and to
say to you in addition, that it would give the committee great
pleasure, as well as many others of your personal friends, if your
health and time will allow you to comply with this invitation.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
HORACE SEAVER.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
_West Roxbury_, January 14, 1843.
DEAR SIR:--Your favor of the 11th instant came in my absence from
home, and I now hasten to reply to the invitation you offer me.
With the views I entertain of Mr. Paine's character in his later
years, I could not, consistently with my own sense of duty, join
with you in celebrating his birth-day. I feel grateful, truly so,
for the services rendered by his _political_ writings, and his
practical efforts in the cause of freedom; though with what I
understand to be the spirit of his writings on theology and
religion, I have not the smallest sympathy.
I am, respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
THEODORE PARKER.
This is one arch-heretic trampling on his brother in the holy name of
religion. Yet the great work which Thomas Paine performed before Mr.
Parker was conceived in the womb of Time, made a Theodore Parker
possible. Parker stood on the shoulders of Thomas Paine, and he uttered
scarcely a thought on religion and theology which Mr. Paine had not
written before him. Mr. Parker translated DeWette, but Mr. Paine's
second part of the Age of Reason, as an original investigation and
critical examination of the Bible, will be read when Parker's
translation of DeWette is forgotten. The latter is a scholar's effort,
dry, voluminous, costly, and soon to be laid away forever; the former, a
friend's offering to mankind, brought within the reach of their
understanding and their means. As an argument it has never been equaled;
as a theological work it is fair and candid; as a religious work it
breathes the spirit of forbearance, kindness, morality, and brotherly
love. I have searched in vain to find the authority for Mr. Parker's
religious hatred to Thomas Paine. They taught the same morality and
religion, the same theology, the same retributive justice, and denounced
boldly the same errors in politics and religion; and differed only in
this that Mr. Parker said his prayers in public, and Mr. Paine in
private. The hatred to Mr. Paine is perhaps inherited, and we stand in
awe of him as of the devil, without a reason and without knowing why.
The Egyptian children still startle at the name of "Bonaparte;" the
American children at the name of Thomas Paine; and Mr. Parker never
outgrew this superstition of his youth. But the historian may safely
record: _Without Thomas Paine, there would have been no Theodore
Parker_.
* * * * *
The reader can not fail to see the substantial elements of the Quaker
character in Junius, if we let Mr. Paine define it. In the Age of
Reason, second part, he says: "The only sect that has not persecuted are
the Quakers, and the only reason that can be given for it is, that they
are rather Deists than Christians. They do not believe much about Jesus
Christ, and they call the Scriptures a dead letter."
The Quakers have no priesthood. With them the power to teach is the
immediate gift of God, and they speak as they are moved by the Spirit,
and what they say is by the inspiration of the inner light. They have
neither pulpit nor church, and in their meeting there is neither
ceremony nor song, nor the dull routine of stated prayers. They oppose
war, slavery, intemperance, litigation, extravagance, profanity, and
priestcraft. Dancing and dressing in the fashion of the day they
forbid. Their religion consists in morality; not in ceremony and show.
They hate a bishop as they hate a tyrant, and they hold an honest man
the noblest work of God. What could be more like Junius than this? But
if this does not satisfy the reader the evidence of Junius himself would
have little weight. But he positively affirms the principles of the
Quakers as the true religion, and this ought to satisfy the most
doubtful. At the close of Letter 41, he says: "An _honest_ man, _like
the true religion_, appeals to the understanding, or modestly confides
_in the internal evidences_ of his conscience. The _impostor_ employs
_force_ instead of argument, imposes silence when he can not convince,
and _propagates his character by the sword_." This proves Junius to be a
Quaker, in principle. No one can mistake the expression: "The internal
evidences of the conscience," which often comes so forcibly from Junius.
And says Paine also: "As for morality, the knowledge of it exists in
every man's conscience." Were an artist called upon to produce a picture
of Junius' moral, political, and religious character, he could give no
shade or stroke which he could not find full and distinct in the living
character of Mr. Paine.
Although Thomas Paine was not a professed Quaker, yet the rigid Quaker
principles of moral conduct spoke out in every action; and while he did
not spare their errors, he spoke highly of them as a sect. He chastised
them with an unsparing hand, but it was in friendship, not in revenge.
He loved their austere worship, he sought their society, he walked in
their ways, and often paid them a tribute of praise. In short, by birth
he was a Quaker, but by profession not. He was himself, an original man
thrown out upon earth, born for a purpose, which he fulfilled.
But the moral character of Junius was the same; he proves it so in a
hundred different ways; in his pride of character, in his love of
justice, in his sympathies for the people, in his declaration of human
rights, in the austerity of his morals, in his faith in the interior
evidence of the conscience, in his hatred to bad men and bad measures,
in his moral courage to attack the strongholds of political corruption.
No one but a man having a double portion of Quaker principles and Quaker
spirit could talk as did Junius to the king, unmasking him before the
public, and exposing his weakness, wickedness, folly, and stupidity. And
herein nature comes powerfully in to my aid in my argument. In fact, it
is my only object to trace the lines of argument which nature has drawn,
and never to descend to art.
* * * * *
Says Mr. Paine: "It sometimes happens, as well in writing as in
conversation, that a person lets slip an expression that serves to
unravel what he intends to conceal." I will take him at his word and
quote two short passages of his own, giving a few strokes of his
personal history: "If I have anywhere expressed myself over-warmly, 'tis
from a fixed, immovable hatred I have, and ever had, to cruel men and
cruel measures. I have likewise an aversion to monarchy, as being too
debasing to the dignity of man, but I never troubled others with my
notions till very lately, nor ever published a syllable in England in my
life. What I write is pure nature, and my pen and my soul have ever
gone together. My writings I have always given away, reserving only the
expense of printing and paper, and sometimes not even that. I never
courted either fame or interest, and my manner of life, to those who
know it, will justify what I say. My study is to be useful."
The above was thrown into the body of Crisis, ii, and addressed to Lord
Howe. Let us examine its separate counts:
I. "Hatred to cruel men and cruel measures." See on this head the
_hatred_ of Junius to the _tyrant_ in any form, to the "hoary lecher,"
Lord Irnham, to the "_monsters_" of the house of Bedford, and the "worst
man in the kingdom," Lord Mansfield.
II. "An aversion to monarchy, as being too debasing to the dignity of
man." This is the key-note to Junius.
III. "Never troubled others with my notions till very lately." This was
dated January 13, 1777, just one year after Common Sense, and just five
years after the last Letter of Junius. _Very lately_ is an indefinite
expression, and is meant to pave the way for the next, which was
designed to mislead the unwary, and here we see unmistakable evidence of
Junius.
IV. "I never _published_ a syllable in England in my life." When
Woodfall was prosecuted for publishing Junius' Letter to the king, the
jury found him "_guilty of publishing only_." Then Junius, whoever he
was, never published a syllable of the Letters. But Mr. Paine wrote a
pamphlet, "The Case of the Excise Officers," while in England, and it
was published by a Mr. Lee. To the unthinking, the sentence: "I never
published a syllable in England in my life," would be proof at first
that he never wrote for the press, but a moment's thought will show it
to be an innocent subterfuge. But why this subterfuge, if Mr. Paine was
not Junius, and he had not yet a work to perform in England? If not
Junius, what is the meaning of it? Why did he say it? The reader must
answer.
V. "My writings I have always given away." Junius gave to Mr. Woodfall
the whole of his Letters. See his Preface.
VI. "I never courted either fame or interest." Says Junius: "To write
for profit, without taxing the press; to write for fame and be unknown;
to support the intrigues of faction, and be disowned by every party in
the kingdom, are contradictions," etc. That is, he was charged with
writing for fame and interest, and he thus contradicts it.
VII. "What I write is pure nature." Thus, Junius says: "The works of a
master require no index, his features and coloring are taken from
nature;" and a hundred other examples could be given.
VIII. "My study is to be useful." Thus also Junius: "Is there no merit
in dedicating my life to the information of my fellow-subjects? He is
not paid for his labor, and certainly has a right to choose his
employment."
It is thus I could take every statement of Thomas Paine, either of
previous life, private purpose, or public principle, and find its
counterpart in Junius. This could not be done were not the two
characters the same person. Take again, for example, the statement in
Crisis, xv. Speaking of the part he took in the revolution, he says:
I. "So far as my endeavors could go, they have all been directed to
conciliate the affections, unite the interests, and draw and keep the
mind of the country together; (II) and the better to assist in this
foundation work of the revolution, I have avoided all places of profit
or office, either in the State I live in or in the United States, kept
myself at a distance from all parties and party connections, and even
disregarded all private and inferior concerns; and when we take into
view the great work which we have gone through, and feel, as we ought to
feel, the first importance of it, we shall then see that the little
wranglings and indecent contentions of personal parley are as
dishonorable to our characters as they are injurious to our purpose.
(III) It was the cause of America that made me an author. The force with
which it struck my mind, and the dangerous condition the country
appeared to me in, by courting an impossible and unnatural
reconciliation with those who were determined to reduce her, instead of
striking out into the only line that could cement and save her--A
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE--made it impossible for me, feeling as I
did, to be silent: (IV) and if in the course of more than seven years I
have rendered her any service, I have likewise added something to the
reputation of literature, by freely and disinterestedly employing it in
the great cause of mankind, and showing that there may be genius without
prostitution."
Compare now the above with Junius, as follows: I. "It is time for those
who really mean the _Cause_ and the _People_, who have no view to
private advantage, and who have virtue enough to prefer the general
good of the community to the gratification of personal animosities: it
is time for such men to interpose. Let us try whether these fatal
dissensions may not yet be reconciled, or if that be impracticable, let
us guard at least against the worst effects of division, and endeavor to
persuade these furious partisans, if they will not consent to _draw
together_, to be separately useful to that _cause_ which they all
pretend to be attached to." II. "To write for profit without taxing the
press, to write for fame and to be unknown, to support the intrigues of
factions and to be disowned as a dangerous anxiliary by every party in
the kingdom are contradictions which the minister must reconcile before
I forfeit my credit with the public." III. "It was the cause of America
that made me an author," says Paine. This is true of Junius; for the
troubles which called him forth are well known to be those of America.
But he would never have been known, perhaps, had he not written _Common
Sense_, which was published anonymously, and was at first attributed to
Benjamin Franklin. IV. "The reputation of these papers is an honorable
pledge for my attachment to the people.... These letters, my lord, are
read in other countries and in other languages. For my own part, I claim
no merit from endeavoring to do a service to my fellow-subjects. I have
done it to the best of my understanding, and without looking for the
approbation of other men, my conscience is satisfied."
REVIEW.
Let us now retrace our steps, and see how strong a case is made out.
1. Twelve facts in the life of Mr. Paine shown to be the same as those
in Junius.
2. An apparent contradiction proven to be a parallel fact.
3. They both represent Quaker principles.
4. They have the same views of conscience.
5. Both believe in the divine justice of retribution.
6. Both believe in future punishment.
7. Both have the same views of prayer.
8. Both have the same dislike to the word infidel.
9. Both have the same opinion of Jesus of Nazareth.
10. Both have the same views of Christianity.
11. Both use the term Christian the same.
12. Both had a special dislike to Methodism.
13. Both were inveterate enemies to priestcraft.
14. Both made a wide difference between piety and morality.
15. Both had the same views of the Catholic faith.
16. Both ridiculed "Peter."
17. Both affirmed that they did not persecute for religious opinion.
18. Both hated a narrow system in politics or religion.
19. Both had the same views of "religion."
20. Both had the same views of superstition.
21. Both had the same views of atheism.
22. Both had the same views of providence.
23. Both had the same views of the theater.
24. Both detested gamblers and gambling.
25. Both had the same opinion of the English Constitution.
26. Both were extremely cautious.
27. Both were extremely politic.
28. Both loved method.
29. Both evinced the same kind of method in writing.
30. Both had the same views of the origin of military governments.
31. Both had the same views of party politics.
32. Neither would take part in party politics.
33. Both had the same pride of character.
34. Both had the same views of the English army.
35. Both loved free thought.
36. Both thought alike of suspicion.
37. Both expressed the same views of antagonism.
38. Both placed personal interest above strict moral right.
39. Both thought alike of oaths.
40. They had the same opinion of courts and courtiers.
41. They considered the termination of the Seven Years' War a
distinguished period, and dated the misfortunes and establishment of
tyranny in England from that period.
42. They both had the same opinion of Lord North.
43. Both had the same opinion of Lord Mansfield.
44. Both had the same views of precedent.
45. Both had the same opinion of lawyers.
46. Both had the same views of the cause of America.
47. Both had the same views of the minority in England.
48. And herein the same views of Lord Chatham.
49. Both traced the rights of man back to their origin.
50. Both express themselves alike in regard to laws in general.
51. Both express themselves alike in regard to the _game law_.
52. Both declare _law to be king_.
53. They had the same predilections in regard to politics.
54. They were neither of them partisans.
55. They were both practical.
56. Both often appealed to experience and the evidence of facts.
57. Both assert the mind becomes what it contemplates.
58. Both were deeply read in the "_history of the human heart_."
59. Both delight in charging _bastardy_.
60. Secretiveness was a ruling characteristic.
61. Both had the same opinion of moderate men.
62. They were both enthusiasts.
63. Both were too proud to be vain or to flatter.
64. Both placed too high an estimate on the judgment of the masses.
65. Both were excessively hopeful.
66. Personal honor unparalleled in history.
67. Both express themselves alike in regard to avarice and the miser.
68. Both often assert that "language fails."
69. Both have the same method of argumentation, and hereunder many
parallels are given.
70. Both have the same style, and hereunder many parallels are given.
71. More than sixty parallel expressions and figures of speech are
given.
72. They both use the same kind of figures the most frequently.
73. They use the figure in the same manner, and usually one at the close
of an article.
74. Both use the same facts and figure to illustrate national honor.
75. The same rythm in style is common to both.
76. The same alliteration.
77. The same method of bringing the subject into one view.
78. The wandering from the point and mentioning the fact.
79. The same threat, command, and warning.
80. The same method of ridicule and satire.
81. The same use of diminutives.
82. The same sacrifice of grammar to conciseness.
83. The same majesty and grandeur of style.
84. _Common Sense parallels with Junius_, in many ways, and hereunder
more than forty examples, which to repeat would be to rewrite them.
85. They were both revolutionists.
86. They both dedicated their life to the same object: to remove some
wrong, to do mankind some good.
87. They both attacked the King of England and his ministry in the same
spirit and language.
88. Both had the same opinion of bribery at elections.
89. They were both political reformers, following the same principle
without pay and above party.
* * * * *
{190}In the above argument I have given nearly three hundred parallel facts
and characteristics, many of them of such a nature that it would be at
variance with _nature_ itself to suppose them to belong to different
men. But I have also searched for a _solitary fact_ which would in the
least render Mr. Paine and Junius incompatible, and _have found it not_.
This is a task I hope some reader, who has some means and ample time,
will devote a year or two to investigate. My case is much stronger than
I hoped even to make it. I have by no means given all the facts and
parallels, but where one would answer, I put it in the place of several
on the same subject. I have labored to condense--not to expand; I have,
therefore, commented but little, and reasoned scarcely any. There is no
reasoning which is superior to the simple declaration of facts. It
should be the office of the writer to present _facts_ to A REASONING
WORLD. The literary world has had enough of the whirlwind of words; it
wants a deluge of facts. Then each mind will take care of itself, if
worth preserving. To this end I subjoin Lord Macaulay's five reasons why
Sir Philip Francis was Junius:
"Was he the author of the Letters of Junius? Our own firm belief
is that he was. The external evidence is, we think, such as would
support a verdict in a civil--nay, in a criminal proceeding. The
handwriting of Junius is the very peculiar handwriting of Francis,
slightly disguised. As to the position, pursuits, and connections
of Junius, the following are the most important facts, which can
be considered as clearly proved: First, that he was acquainted
with the technical forms of the Secretary of State's office;
secondly, that he was intimately acquainted with the business of
the War Office; thirdly, that he, during the year 1770, attended
debates in the House of Lords, and took notes of
speeches--particularly of the speeches of Lord Chatham; fourthly,
that he bitterly resented the appointment of Mr. Chamier to the
place of Deputy Secretary at War; fifthly, that he was bound by
some strong tie to the first Lord Holland.... Now here are five
marks, all of which ought to be found in Junius. They are all five
found in Francis. We do not believe that more than two of them can
be found in any other person whatever. If this argument does not
settle the question, there is an end of all reasoning on
circumstantial evidence." [In answer to this, see appendix.]
{191}If that kind and amount of evidence would hang a man in the time of
Macaulay, the times have so changed that it takes far stronger evidence
to hang men now than then. That kind of evidence is absolutely worthless
for two reasons: first, the facts alleged in the separate counts are
neither of them necessary to the production of Junius; and, secondly,
they would prove nothing if they were, for they might be common to a
hundred men, and that they were _not_ would be matter of fact to prove.
Even Macaulay makes this rest on his own _belief_. "We do not
_believe_," he says, "that more than two of them can be found in any
other person whatever." But the fact is, they are absolutely
"imaginary," and not at all necessary.
"The internal evidence," he says, "_seems_ to point in the same way."
First, he acknowledges that Francis, as a writer, is inferior to Junius,
but not "_decidedly_," and then he goes on to say: "One of the strongest
reasons for believing that Francis was Junius, is the _moral_
resemblance between the two men." Macaulay now sets up a character for
Junius, the most of which is not to be found in Junius, and says it is
like Francis. It is thus he imposes on the credulity of the ignorant.
But I give his words, that the reader may investigate for himself:
"It is not difficult, from the letters which, under _various
signatures_, are known to have been written by Junius, and from his
dealings with Woodfall and others, to form a tolerable correct _notion_
of his character." I call the attention of the reader to the above
sentence, and have emphasized the word "_notion_," and the phrase
"_various signatures_." Of the former, I would remark that a _notion_ of
one's character falls far short of a judgment, and in a criticism is not
only trifling, but contemptible. In regard to "various signatures," I
will let Junius himself answer: "The encouragement given to a _multitude
of spurious, mangled publications_ of the 'Letters of Junius,' persuades
me that a complete edition, corrected and improved by the author, will
be favorably received."--Preface. In this volume his signature is
Junius, and occasionally, when he wishes to explain the meaning, or
defend the principle, he puts forward Philo Junius, but _never without
this cause_. I now proceed to give the character which Macaulay has
picked up--_I know not where_:
"He was clearly a man not destitute of real patriotism and
magnanimity--a man whose vices were not of a sordid kind. But he
must also have been a man in the highest degree arrogant and
insolent--a man prone to malevolence, and prone to the error of
mistaking his malevolence for public virtue. 'Doest thou well to
be angry?' was the question asked in olden time of the Hebrew
prophet, and he answered: 'I do well.' This was evidently the
temper of Junius, and to this cause we attribute the savage
cruelty which disgraces several of his Letters. No man is so
merciless as he who, under a strong self-delusion, confounds his
antipathies with his duties. It may be added that Junius, though
allied with the democratic party by common enmities, was the very
opposite of a democratic politician. While attacking individuals
with a ferocity which perpetually violated all the laws of
literary warfare, he regarded the most defective parts of the old
constitution with a respect amounting to pedantry; pleaded the
cause of Old Saurum with fervor, and contemptuously told the
capitalists of Manchester and Leeds that, if they wanted votes,
they might buy land and become freeholders of Lancashire and
Yorkshire. All this, we believe, might stand, with scarcely any
change, for a character of Philip Francis."
Thus much Macaulay. Where he got the above character I am unable to
tell, unless out of his own imagination. Before I answer it, I will give
another perversion of the truth. Dr. Goodrich concludes his article on
Junius as follows: "Junius continued his labors, with various ability,
but with little success, nearly two year's longer; until, in the month
of January, 1772, the king remarked to a friend in confidence: 'Junius
is known, and will write no more.' Such proved to be the fact. His last
performance was dated January 21, 1772, three years to a day from his
first letter to the printer of the Public Advertiser. Within a _few
months_, SIR PHILIP FRANCIS was appointed to one of the highest stations
of _profit and trust_ in India, at a distance of fifteen thousand miles
from the seat of English politics!"
The "_few months_" in the above sentence is just a year and a half after
the king "remarked in confidence," etc. But Francis did not go to India
for more than two and a half years after. In March, 1772, he resigned
his clerkship in the war department, in consequence of a quarrel with
Lord Barrington, the new Minister at War. He then left England, and
traveled on the continent the remainder of the year; in the June
following he was appointed one of the Council of Bengal, with a salary
of L10,000, and in the summer of 1774 went to India. That fall Thomas
Paine came to America. It is thus the phrase "_a few months_," artfully
put into a sentence in connection with the _supposed_ fact that the king
had found out Junius, and had bribed him to stop writing, would mislead
the mind, and pervert a reasonable conclusion. This is a trick of the
pen, and to which no honorable mind will descend. The fact is, Francis
would never have been thought of as Junius, had he not been an intimate
friend and schoolmate of Mr. Woodfall's.
{195}But the above argument, summed up by Lord Macaulay, is the
strongest on record for any man till now. I was not aware of its
weakness till now. I supposed there was a plausible argument at least.
To be answered, it needs only to be appended to this. I speak without
vanity, for the argument is nature's own, not mine. I will honor it,
therefore, with a rebuttal from Junius himself. In Letter 44 he says: "I
may quit the service, but it would be absurd to suspect me of desertion.
The reputation of these papers is an honorable pledge for my attachment
to the people. To sacrifice a respected character, and to renounce the
esteem of society, requires more than Mr. Wedderburn's resolution; and
though in him it was rather a profession than a desertion of his
principles (I speak tenderly of this gentleman, for, when treachery is
in question, I think we should make allowances for a Scotchman), yet we
have seen him in the House of Commons, overwhelmed with confusion, and
almost bereft of his faculties. But in truth, sir, I have left no room
for an accommodation with the piety of St. James'. My offenses are not
to be redeemed by recantation or repentance: on one side, our warmest
patriots would disclaim me as a burthen to their honest ambition; on the
other, the vilest prostitution, if Junius could descend to it, would
lose its natural merit and influence in the cabinet, and treachery be no
longer a recommendation to the royal favor."
There is not, among the dregs or scummings of human nature, a character
so false and vile as to write that, and then do as Francis did, or do as
the king of England did, if he believed him to be Junius. Nature rebels
at such an argument, founded on the facts of the case. It is by a
species of subterfuge, or literary legerdemain, exhibiting some facts
and hiding others, calling the attention to some trifling thing, and
then concealing the truth of the matter, is all that has ever rendered
the argument in favor of Francis of any consequence with the public.
There is more, for example, in the one word _Lord_, placed just in
front of Macaulay, than in any argument he may give on the subject. In
fact, that word imposes on the mind an authority not easily resisted. It
obscures the reason, quiets investigation, destroys the desire to
search, beguiles thought, puts the mind to sleep, and the reader, like a
young bird with eyes closed and mouth open, takes the food from out the
old one's mouth, gulps it down, and goes to sleep. It is thus the
student and the professor take, on authority, what they have no business
to, and do what they never would do, did their own souls not bow basely
at the shrine of some literary Baal. It is thus in politics, religion,
history, law, philosophy, criticism, belles-lettres, science--whichever
way we turn we find the false god and his worshipers. When the student
and the professor come to find Mr. Macaulay to be a man of much talent
in a certain direction, but by no means a literary god to be worshiped
as infallible, they will lose faith in his assertions which come without
proof.
It had been my intention to throw a few hints into the Introduction upon
external and internal evidence, as it is called, but I concluded to
defer it till now, because the remarks and the illustrations would then
be thrown together.
In a criticism of this kind, but little confidence can be placed in
external evidence, because it all comes within the realm of _art_ or
_accident_, and any scientific truth can not be founded thereon. For
example, Macaulay says: "The handwriting of Junius is the very peculiar
handwriting of Francis, slightly disguised." Handwriting is an _art_,
just like chopping wood or playing on the piano. And to tell who wrote
an article by the "peculiar" handwriting, is about as safe as to hazard
an opinion upon who is chopping wood by the "peculiar" swing of the ax.
Nor does the same individual always write in the same style or manner.
Such proof is good for nothing. And this is the nature of all external
evidence, and is the cause of the endless litigation in our courts. A
man may go on the stand and swear to a lie. I have known men do it. Then
we draw inferences from the associations of men, which the real facts of
the case might not warrant. The accidents of place and position, of
friendships and age, of times and circumstances, and even of existence,
all may or may not, in a world full of men, have bearing on the facts
which form the opinion of an outside spectator. For example, Francis,
_it is said_, "did not _deny_ that he was Junius." If he had denied or
affirmed he was, it would have proved just the same. It belongs to the
most worthless kind of external evidence. A naturalist does not ask his
horse whether or not he is a horse. If the horse could speak and say to
his master, "I am a jackass," the master would be a fool to believe him.
It is thus persons often put on a character in a word or two which does
not belong to them, but nature takes care to always reveal the true
character, if they say much. Now if we could get within the meaning of
the words, get behind them to the spirit of their author, we would be
getting at the very soul of evidence. This would be true, and we could
found a scientific conclusion upon it, because _natural_ and not
_artificial_. This is internal evidence. At present, this kind of
evidence is known only in such a criticism as this, for the soul of the
author shines out of his work, I care not who he is. We may, for aught
I know, write our history on all we touch. If so, science will some day
give the world a knowledge of it. It is then external evidence will have
ceased.
In a work of this kind, it is incumbent on the critic to ascertain,
first, the spirit and object of the work, and then to see if it be
inconsistent with itself. If it is not, then the character he finds will
be true to nature, and he can not go wrong in his conclusions. There is
a passage in Letter 53 on this very point. Junius is speaking of the
Rev. Mr. Horne, and says: "He repeatedly affirms, or intimates, at
least, that he knows the author of these Letters. With what color of
truth, then, can he pretend 'that I am nowhere to be encountered but in
a newspaper?' I shall leave him to his suspicions. It is not necessary
that I should confide in the honor and discretion of a man who always
seems to hate me with as much rancor as if I had formerly been his
friend. But he asserts that he has traced me through a variety of
signatures. To make the discovery of any importance to his purpose, he
should have proved either that the fictitious character of Junius has
not been consistently supported, or that the author has maintained
different principles under different signatures. I can not recall to my
memory the numberless trifles I have written; _but I rely on the
consciousness of my own_ INTEGRITY, and defy him to fix any colorable
charge of _inconsistency_ upon me."
* * * * *
Now, what have I shown? It is that the character of Thomas Paine, as
found in his writings (not in what people say about him), is the very
same character, with all its shades and coloring, which is found in the
LETTERS OF JUNIUS. This is shown by the best and strongest evidence
under the sun, _internal_ evidence. I have purposely avoided all
external evidence, from the mere fact of its worthlessness, inasmuch as
it is that kind of evidence which itself needs proof. If, for example,
Thomas Paine had said to some one: "I wrote Junius," it would be no
evidence to me, and would weigh just the same as if he had said: "I did
not write Junius." It is external evidence, and may be a lie, for lying
is common to mankind. It is that kind of evidence which needs proof. But
nature never makes two great characters alike, nor at the same time. She
is prodigal of varieties. And if two characters seem alike, it is
because of their insignificance; the orbit of their life is so small it
can not be measured. But when a Paine, or a Parker, or a Luther, or a
Jesus, is let loose on earth, they each describe an orbit so large and
peculiar there is no mistaking it for any thing else the world ever
exhibits among men. And in their earthly pilgrimage, however seemingly
erratic in their course, nature holds them true to her purposes, and
holds up no lie therein to deceive the senses. She is true, also, to
_herself_, in giving to us these world's redeemers.
My argument, then, is, Nature would not be natural if Thomas Paine were
not Junius, _a mere absurdity_. But let us suppose he is not. Then, to
make out the case, strong evidence of the same _internal_ kind would
have to be produced in favor of this supposition. But I have searched
for a solitary fact which would even tend to contradict my hypothesis,
and have not found it. And I frankly confess, had I found it, this book
would not have been written. Reader, search for it yourself, and, when
found, publish it to the world, for the world is suffering for the want
of truth. And though my conclusions be false, if I have been the means
of revealing the truth, I shall not have written in vain.