New England and the Bavarian Illuminati

by Vernon Stauffer

But preachers were not the only public characters who early caught up and echoed the new alarm. Orators, too, lent the aid of their voices in an effort to persuade the people that their liberties and institutions were in danger of a deadly thrust from this new quarter. A number of these, on the Fourth of July just referred to, delivered themselves of sentiments similar to those which President Dwight expressed. Thus at Sharon, Connecticut, the orator of the day, a certain John C. Smith, supplied a new thrill to his patriotic address by informing his hearers that the French Revolution was the result

chiefly of a combination long since founded in Europe, by Infidels and Atheists, to root out and effectually destroy Religion and Civil Government,—not this or that creed of religion,—not this or that form of government,—in this or that particular country,—but all religion,—all government,—and that through the world.[674]

At Hartford, Theodore Dwight, brother to Yale’s president, publicly averred it was a fact well ascertained that the French Revolution “was planned by a set of men whose avowed object was the overthrow of Altars and Thrones, that is, the destruction of all Religion and Government.”[675] At the midnight orgies of the “modern Illuminati” the plan had been conceived and nourished. For six years past, the orator declared, the government of France has been directed by men who have been schooled in that society of demons.[676] In the same city, and on the same occasion, another voice was raised to declaim against the reckless impiety of French partisans in the United States.[677] These conspiring men, so this orator somewhat vaguely declared, are said to have substituted the wild dogmas of infidel philosophy for the benevolent principles of Christianity. They have adopted “a philosophy originating in wickedness, founded in error, and subversive of the peace and happiness of society.”[678]

From this early handling of the subject by clergymen and orators, we are now called away to consider a significant exposition of the matter in the columns of a Boston newspaper. To the issue of the Massachusetts Mercury of July 27, 1798, “Censor” contributed an article that was destined to have important bearings on the course of public discussion. Professing a spirit of reasonable moderation, “Censor” offered the practical suggestion that the time had come to inquire what evidence Professor Robison possessed respecting the authenticity of his sources. “At this distance,” he urged, “it is impossible to decide on the truth of his assertions, or the respectability of his testimonies.” Yet the writer had had his attention drawn to certain evidences of prejudice, misrepresentation, and unrestrained imagination on the part of Robison which tended to destroy confidence in his judgment. Dr. Morse, too, he continued, on the unsupported assertion of an individual three thousand miles distant, to the effect that several lodges of the Illuminati had been established in America prior to ’86, in his fast sermon had seen fit to declare that the Illuminati were here, that they had made considerable progress among us, and that to them were to be traced the torrent of irreligion and the abuse of everything good and praiseworthy which threatens to overwhelm the world. For all these assertions, “Censor” inquired, where were the evidences?[679]

The tone of “Censor’s” article was decidedly hostile. The spirit of cynicism and distrust had lifted its head, not apologetically but boldly. The evidence in the case was called for. To Jedediah Morse, original and chief sponsor for the outcry against the Illuminati, it must have seemed clear that the obligation of meeting the issue thus joined rested squarely upon his own shoulders. Nor was he minded to evade responsibility. And thus it happened that the columns of the Massachusetts Mercury, for some weeks to come,[680] carried a succession of articles over Morse’s signature, all laboring to prove that the judgment their author had passed upon Robison’s volume had not been hasty, but was well grounded in reason. To these articles, rambling and inconclusive as they were, we must now devote attention.

Expressing first his gratitude that Professor Robison’s Proofs of a Conspiracy had attracted the attention of so large and respectable a portion of the community, Morse thereupon professed surprise that his own commendation of that work in his late fast day sermon should have exposed him to the necessity of vindicating both the author of the Proofs and his own composition.[681] He had assumed that every reader of Robison’s production would be impressed as he had been with the evidence of the author’s talents, views, candor, and integrity. The sensitiveness and irritation which members of the Masonic fraternity had shown had also astonished him. His hope had been that the notes by which his published fast day sermon had been accompanied would forestall censure from that quarter. However the necessity to vindicate Professor Robison and his book had been imposed upon him, and that he would proceed to do. He would first introduce extracts from his fast day sermon to show that he had recommended Robison’s book, not because of any observations unfavorable to the Masons which it contained, but for the sole reason that it exposed the dark conspiracies of the Illuminati against civil government and Christianity.[682]

The vindication of Professor Robison’s character and reputation as a man and writer was next undertaken. These points Morse considered to be fully established by the positions that Robison occupied as Secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and Professor of Natural Philosophy in one of the best universities of the world. If further proof should be required, the contributions that Robison had made to the Encyclopædia Britannica certainly vouched for his respectability and prominence. Beyond this Morse could go no further than to add that private advices which had come to him from one of his foreign correspondents, the Reverend Dr. Erskine, of Edinburgh, fully confirmed the reputation of the Scotch professor.[683]

But since it was likely to be remarked in this instance that “great men are not always wise,” Morse proposed to deal next with the marks of the book’s credibility. As to external marks, the approbation and support of the book by very respectable men in England and Scotland, and its approval and recommendation by clergymen and laymen of discernment and ability in America, he argued, were to be weighed as impressive considerations.[684] If by way of rejoinder it should be urged that the English reviewers were not of one mind respecting the merits of the book, then his reply would be that having read on both sides of the controversy that had been waged in the English journals, he had been forced to the conclusion that “the balance of candor and truth are [sic] clearly on the side of those who are in favor of Professor Robison, and give credit to his work.”[685]

Respecting the favorable reception which the book had been accorded in America, he was glad to be privileged to point to the sentiments of Professor Tappan,[686] President Dwight,[687] and Theodore Dwight, Esq.[688] It is true that in America the book had excited warm, even virulent opposition; but certainly it had received respectable support, “such as ought to exempt any person from the charge of weakness or credulity who believes it authentic.”[689]