Mr. Benn (Hist. of Eng. Rationalism in the Nineteenth Century, i, 217) remarks that Paine's New Testament criticisms are "such as at all times would naturally occur to a reader of independent mind and strong common sense." If so, these had been up to Paine's time, and remained long afterwards, rare characteristics. And there is some mistake about Mr. Benn's criticism that "the repeated charges of fraud and imposture brought against the Apostles and Evangelists ... jar painfully on a modern ear. But they are largely due to the mistaken notion, shared by Paine with his orthodox contemporaries, that the Gospels and Acts were written by contemporaries and eye-witnesses of the events related." Many times over, Paine argues that the documents could not have been so written. E.g. in Conway's ed. of Works, pp. 157, 158, 159, 160, 164, 167, 168, etc. The reiterated proposition is "that the writers cannot have been eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses of what they relate; ... and consequently that the books have not been written by the persons called apostles" (p. 168). And there is some exaggeration even in Mr. Benn's remark that, "strangely enough, he accepts the Book of Daniel as genuine." Paine (ed. p. 144) merely puts a balance of probability in favour of the genuineness. It may be sometimes--it is certainly not always--true that Paine "cannot distinguish between legendary or [? and] mythical narratives" (Benn, p. 216); but it is to be feared that the disability subsists to-day in more scholarly quarters. Despite his deadly directness, Paine, in virtue of his strong sincerity, probably jars much less on the modern ear than he did on that of his own, which was so ready to make felony of any opinion hostile to reigning prejudices. But if it be otherwise, it is to be feared that no less offence will be given by Mr. Benn's own account of the Hexateuch as "the records kept by a lying and bloodthirsty priesthood"; even if that estimate be followed by the very challengeable admission that "priesthoods are generally distinguished for their superior humanity" (Benn, p. 350, and note). Henceforth there is a vital difference in the fortunes of freethought and religion alike. Always in the past the institutional strength of religion and the social weakness of freethought had lain in the credulity of the ignorant mass, which had turned to naught an infinity of rational effort. After the French Revolution, when over a large area the critical spirit began simultaneously to play on faith and life, politics and religion, its doubled activity gave it a new breadth of outlook as of energy, and the slow enlightenment of the mass opened up a new promise for the ultimate reign of reason. CHAPTER XVII FRENCH FREETHOUGHT IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY