The author brilliantly defends these themes, but some contradictions and inconsistencies are inevitable in any attempt to prove a correlation between Paine's writings during the revolution in America and that in France. Nathalie Caron argues effectively, however, that Paine was pulled in both directions between militant and constructive deism, although only a small part of her book deals with priestcraft in the Voltairean sense. Indeed, the strength of her analysis derives from its integrity, covering as it does all aspects of Paine's religion under the blanket term of deism. This ecumenicalism has its drawbacks, however, especially in regard to Paine's writing during the American Revolution. Its imagery deriving from natural religion was just as acceptable to orthodox Christians as to deists, and its rhetoric, crammed with biblical allusions, is that of evangelical Christianity.
Similar problems arise frequently throughout the book.
When confronting sets of opposing interpretations in previous scholarship, the author faithfully registers both sides but often proceeds to adopt one of them as correct without justifying her decision. She does, however, conscientiously take account of the many contradictions in Paine's thought, especially those related to the contrast between universalism and individualism. He firmly believed, for example, that religion is a purely personal matter while at the same time addressing The Age of Reason to an entire nation. Caron portrays the latter circumstance as a sudden change of perspective, while adhering to her underlying thesis that Paine was throughout his life fundamentally religious. Paradoxically, both interpretations are correct.