Elihu Palmer
- Details
- Parent Category: People
- Category: freethinkers
Elihu Palmer (1764-1806) was an American Deist. A native of Canterbury, Connecticut, Palmer graduated from Dartmouth in 1787 where he trained to become a Presbyterian minister. He is probably the Elihu who in February 1788 wrote an impassioned defense of the wisdom of leaving God out of the U. S. Constitution. (This was in reply to William Williams' letter of February 11, 1788 in the Hartford American Mercury, in which Williams argued that God should be recognized in the Preamble to the Constitution. See: The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, Vol. III. Ratification of the Constitution by the States Delaware, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Edited by Merrill Jensen, Madison State Historical Society of Wis, 1978, pp 590-592)
Palmer later moved to Philadelphia where in March of 1791 he began preaching in "Church Alley". In early 1792 Palmer published a notice in the National Gazette that he intended to give a speech 'against the divinity of Jesus Christ" which "incited both a print war and local mob action against him". His application for membership in the Universalist Church of Philadelphia in 1792 was rejected, and he left for Boston. He apparently resided in New York for a while before returning to Philadelphia in 1793, where he got infected with Yellow Fever and lost his eyesight.
He moved back to New York City where in 1796 he founded the Deistical Society of New York. With the help of his wife he continued to give talks on Deism, started two newspapers (The Temple of Reason and Prospect, or View of the Moral World), and wrote a book explaining his views, Principles of Nature; or a Development of the Moral Causes of Happiness and Misery among the Human Species.
At some point in the 1790s he lived in Augusta, Georgia, where he assisted American geographer Jedediah Morse. Morse was a strong Federalist who believed that the anti-Federalists were under the influence of the French Illuminati. This is of interest because in 1802 Elihu Palmer's "Theistical Society of New York" was castigated as the "Columbian Illuminati" by John Wood due to the society denial of divine revelation and advocacy of democracy.
Elihu Palmer died in Philadelphia in 1806. His manuscript, The Political World, was never completed.
Bibliography:
Prospect, or View of the moral world (Serial)
The Temple of Reason (serial)
An enquiry relative to the moral & political improvement of the human species. An oration, delivered in the city of New-York on the fourth of July, being the twenty-first anniversary of American independence by Elihu Palmer (Book)
Original sin, atonement, faith, &c. a Christmas discourse delivered in New-York, December, 1798 by Elihu Palmer (Book)
The examiners examined: being a defence of The age of reason by Elihu Palmer (Book)
The political happiness of nations; an oration. Delivered at the city of New-York, on the Fourth July, twenty-fourth anniversary of American independence by Elihu Palmer (Book)
An enquiry relative to the moral & political improvement of the human species An oration, delivered in the city of New-York on the fourth of July, being the twenty-first anniversary of American independence. By Elihu Palmer by Elihu Palmer (Book)
Political miscellany. Containing: I. Observations on our political and commercial connections with France. II. Extracts from a speech, made by Maximilien Robertspierre, in the National Convention, the 10th of May, 1793, on the abuses of antient governments. III. Extracts from an oration, delivered by Elihu Palmer, the 4th of July, 1793. IV. Oration on the anniversary of independence, by Citizen Brackenridge, author of Modern chivalry (Book)
The Political World (unfinished book)
Links:
July 4th Oration given by Elihu Palmer in New York City, 1797
Rejection by the Universalists of Philadelphia in 1792
Segment on Elihu Palmer in Richard Eddy's book Universalism in America
Elihu's impassioned defense of keeping God out of the U. S. Constitution
Principles of Nature (free download of the book in pdf format)
John Wood's 1802 attack on the "Columbian Illuminati" (Palmer first mentioned on page 27)
Elihu Palmer's writings available at Amazon.Com
Bibliography of Elihu Palmer at Bookrags.Com
Bibliograpy of Elihu Palmer at world cat.org
Elihu Palmer entry in Enlightenment-Revolution.Org
Elihu Palmer entry in Philosopedia.Org
Elihu Palmer entry in Wikipedia
Elihu Palmer entry in Encyclopedia of Philosophy (written by Paul Kurtz)
A book mentioning Elihu Palmer:
A Full Exposition of the Clintonian Faction, and the Society of the Columbian Illuminati by John Wood (Newark, 1802)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27274537/A-Full-Exposition-of-the-Clintonian-Faction-and-the-Society-of-the-Columbian-Illuminati-by-John-Wood-1802
I have mentioned the Tellets in my history of Switzerland (p. 309) but I have described them here more particularly, to prepare the mind of the reader for similar scenes, which have been acting for several years in the city of New York, by men with whom we are all acquainted, but who have carefully concealed their proceedings, even from their most intimate acquaintances. —This is no tale, no visionary dream or artful fabrication—Dr. Morse will have no occasion to write to foreign professors to obtain information to the reality of the Illuminati—he will only have to write to the Mayor of New-York, to inform him whether such men as Elihu Palmer, a blind preacher, and David Denniston, an editor of the American Citizen, are in existence, and it will be proved by me that the same Elihu Palmer and David Denniston, with many other zealous Clintonians, have been members of a society, first termed the Philosphical, and afterwards the Theistical, for the avowed purpose of propagating Deism and opposing the christian religion. [27]
....
As the graceless son of a graceless family, most frequently exerts all his ingenuity to complete the infamy of a ruined reputation, so the members of the Theistical Society, mediated upon every scheme to add the last reproach to their characters, already broken and despised.—The imported scum of the Edinburgh Convention, and the refuse of the banished rebels of Ireland, joined also their hearts and hands with the Infidels of New-York, in planning this society.—It was in short a combination of treachery, of indulgence, of frenzy, intemperance and every species of polluted baseness, for the purpose of combating religion, virtue and wisdom. Among such a motly crew, one might suppose their resolutions would be marked with folly and ignorance; but this was not the case; for although all the Devils which issued from Pandora's box, may be supposed to have had a voice in their decrees; yeti is to be remembered, that each of them had been previously exercised, for several years in similar schemes, and therefore, knew how to gloss the blackest villainy under the specious veil of morality—They were no novices in this respect; they were not strangers to the art of cunning or deceit. They were well acquainted, both how to make, and lay their traps, so as to be invisible to any eye, not tinged with suspicion—Like felonious robbers, they associated with, feigned, and courted the habitudes of industry and religion during the day, that they might with more security in their nightly cabals, mangle the divine Revelation into a banquet of pleasure, and season the works of the Fathers, with the seeds of Epicurean philosophy. All their intercourse, all their actions and dealings were infectious. They were the hidden instruments of vice and torment; like poisonous plants, corrupted themselves and corrupting all about them. [28]
....
Having now given a short sketch of the nature of the society which I call the Columbian Illuminati, though termed by its members the Theistical, I shall proceed to show my proofs for the existence of such a society, and give the names and characters of some of its leading members, with an account of their constitution; their connection with the Temple of Reason, and the cause of their affection for the Clinton family.
Although I have been in the habits of intimacy for these two years with several of the principle members, yet I never received the smallest hint of their institution; so secret were they, in their communications to all persons who they had reason to believe were not deists. I have seen them, frequently exchange private signs, but imagined they were masonic.
Societies of this nature would probably remain unknown, were all the members true to their oath of fidelity: but the propagation of deism, like that of treason, is a crime so heinous, that it generally sooner or later, awakens the consciences of some of the actors, whose hearts are not altogether hardened in the deeds of iniquity. [29-30]
....
Palmer's Principles of Nature, was the text book to all the members; and it was put into the hands of every minerval at his first entrance. Before the book itself was printed, detached parts of it were given to the members of the higher grades in manuscript, with particular orders how to use it. [32]
....
Constitution
of the
Theistical Society
of
New-York
"Agreed upon January, 26th year of American Independence"
1st. "The object of this society is to promote the cause of moral science, and general improvement, in opposition to all schemes of religious and political imposture."
2d. "The accomplishment of this object must depend upon the views and disposition of the society, and be regulated by its votes at their respective meetings."
3d. "No person hall be admitted into this society, unless he be recommended by a member thereof, as a person of good moral character, and unequivocally attached to the objects of this institution, and be voted in by the majority; and, in all cases of improper conduct, the right of expulsion shall be vested in the society, and every person on becoming a member of this society, shall subscribe his name to the constitution."
4th. "The society shall by nomination and vote, appoint a President to preside at each meeting."
5th. "A treasurer shall be appointed for the term of six months who shall receive all monies, and account for the same to the society."
6th. "A secretary shall be appointed every six months, whose duty it shall be to record such proceedings as the society shall think proper."
7th. "The society shall meet at such time and place, as the majority shall direct."
8th. "Each member of the society shall pay into the hands of the treasurer, on each meeting, six cents; and the funds arising from this source shall be disposed of by the will of the majority."
9th. "A corresponding committee shall be annually appointed to communicate with other societies of the like nature."
10th. "Each member of the society shall observe order and decorum during the time of the meeting, and cultivate a spirit of friendly and philosophical intercourse."
With regard to the first article, little doubt can be entertained of the sense in which the society understood the phrase "religious and political imposture." Mr. Palmer the President, is a professed preacher of deistical tenets, and all the members of the society. Mr. Carver and Mr. Baron, who are of like principles, assured me that none could be admitted, who acknowledged a belief [35\36] in christianity. The term religious imposture, can, therefore, mean nothing else but the doctrine of divine revelation. The members, I am informed, were also avowed supporters of democracy. Political imposture must of course, signify every form of government not purely democratical. Here, therefore, was a society erected in one of the principal cities of the United States, the members of which, by the first article of their public constitution, were declared enemies to all religions and all governments, not conformable to the whimsical jacobinism of Paine, and the wild philosophy of the disciple, blind Palmer; one of the principal members of this society was David Denniston, the editor of the American citizen, the friend of the pious divines Osgood and McKnight, and the cousin of Mr. De Witt Clinton. I may be censured for making thus free with the name of Dr. McKnight; but how is it possible to judge of the principles of men but from the company they keep, and the persons whom they patronize. If Dr. McKnight will come forward and disavow all further connexion with Denniston and the American Citizen, and profess an entire ignorance of the secret society, in which Denniston has been engaged, then every christian will most readily acquit him of any intentional injury to the divine cause of Revelation; but if on the other hand, Dr. McKnight persevere in giving countenance to this contemptible tool of infidelity, must not every good christian and rational man regard him as a wolf in sheep's clothing, and class him among those priests of hypocrisy, who have injured morality and religion more than either the bigot of superstition, or the philosopher of scepticism. [35-36]
It seems odd for Wood to claim this is a secret society aimed at deceiving people into deism while at the same time arguing that its president is "a professed preacher of deistical tenets". Palmer seems to have made no secret of his deism. It might be added that if members of the society were at all circumspect, perhaps it was because intolerant men like Woods were a genuine threat to their liberty. After all, their views garnered strong opposition from Christians.
In 1819 when the bookseller Richard Carlile published Palmer's Principles of Nature in London, he received a jail sentence for his effort. Nor was this a singular event. In 1824 others went to jail for publishing Principles of Nature and Thomas Paine's Age of Reason. [source: www.clements.umich.edu/exhibits/online/bannedbooks/entry11.html]
According to the website, newsbank.com:
David Dennison, a cousin of DeWitt Clinton, established the daily American Citizen and General Advertiser March 10, 1800. It was a continuation of the Argus, although it had a new title and volume numbering. James Cheetham, the able editor, became a partner of the firm in May of 1801. Cheetham, whose style of writing was lucid and sparkling, supported the Clinton faction against Burr and became a bitter political enemy of Burr. It was Cheetham who first suggested that Burr had not dealt honorably in his efforts to obtain the presidency in 1800. Burr once sued for libel. There were many libel suits brought against the Citizen; once as many as fourteen were pending.
Another book:
Universalism in America: a history by Richard Eddy, vol I (1636-1800) Boston: Universalist Publishing House, 1884 (pages 304-307) Our interest begins with a letter from the Unitarian Church of Philadelphia to George Richards, Mar 14, 1792:
"No doubt Brother Gordon mentioned to you a Mr. Palmer who was preaching with us when he left this city for Boston. This young man offered himself to become a member of our church, but before the time for admitting him his sentiments were suspected of being Socinian, if not Deistical. He was accordingly examined, and confessed that he did believe Jesus to be the natural son of Joseph and Mary, begotten by ordinary generation. This made his membership with us inadmissible at that time. He still continues the same, and hath withdrawn from us, and hath gotten other places to preach in, where he can preach that sentiment freely, and that to crowded audiences."
The person referred to was Elihu Palmer, a native of Canterbury, Conn., born in 1764. He has been called a deist, and probably was so later in life; but in 1792 his disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity would have been likely to have gained him the reputation of being a deist, even if he had professed unwavering faith in revealed religion. Denied the fellowship of the Universalists, Mr. Palmer, with a few followers, obtained a room in Church Alley, and commenced preaching there in March, 1791. Somewhere in 1788 or 1789, John Fitch, the inventor of the steamboat, and Henry Voight, his associate in that enterprise, who were avowed deists, believing, as they claimed, only in "the God of Nature," discovered from conversation with [304\305] others that there were a sufficient number of persons in Philadelphia in sympathy with their views to justify at attempt at an organization. It was not, however, till February, 1790, that they succeeded in perfecting their plans, and organized what they called "The Universal Society." In order to separate themselves and their society as much as possible from all Christian influences, it was resolved among the members to cease the use of Anno Domini, and to date their era from the establishment of "The Universal Society."
The announcement that Mr. Palmer was to preach on the date above mentioned, and the circumstances under which this meeting was held, attracted much attention throughout Philadelphia; and "The Universal Society," which at that time numbered forty members, especially interested themselves to give the persecuted man, as they styled him, all the aid in their power, and, if possible, win him over to themselves. The room where the meeting was held was therefore crowded,—"The Universal Society," it may be supposed, being present in full strength. Mr. Palmer preached from Micah vi. 8: "Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God." In the sermon he combated the dogma of the deity of Christ; and the success of the effort was such that notice was given that on the succeeding Sunday he would preach again. This announcement, with the attendant circumstances, excited much feeling, remonstrance, and heated opposition on the part of the leading Christian people in the city. Bishop White was prominent in the crusade against the movement; and although the owner of the room in which the meetings were being held was a member of "The Universal Society" he could not [305\306] resist the pressure brought against him, but closed his doors against the people on the day fixed for the second sermon. "The Universal Society" soon ceased to exist.
Mr. Palmer went to New York for a while, and afterwards returning to Philadelphia, was attacks by the yellow fever in 1793, and became totally blind. He again moved to New York, where he became the head of the "Columbian Illuminati," established in 1801. He died in Philadelphia in 1806.
These facts with regard to Elihu Palmer have been narrated chiefly because Dr. Francis, in his "Old New York" (p. 91) speaks of the beginning of the Universalist movement in New York city as being inaugurated by Edward Mitchell and William Palmer, who "drew together a most respectable body of believers;" and then goes on to say that Palmer commenced his work in New York, but "proceeded to Philadelphia for the purpose of the study and practice of the law, took the yellow fever of 1793; and died in Philadelphia, of pleurisy, in the winter of 1805 or 1806."
The similarity of these circumstances of sickness, blindness, and time and place of death, indicate that Elihu and William Palmer were the same person; but the fact of association with Edward Mitchell, an intensely prejudiced Trinitarian, in building up Universalism in New York, is ground for positive conviction that either Dr. Francis has made a mistake in his narrative, or [306\307] that Palmer ceased to be a Unitarian. Mr. Mitchell's narrative of his work in New York, yet to be given in these pages, makes no mention of Mr. Palmer. The Rev. Nathaniel Stacy, in his "Memoirs" (p. 105), says that Rev. John Murray was in attendance at the New England convention of 1804, at Sturbridge, Mass., and that "he came in company with a man from the city of New York by the name of Palmer, who also delivered one discourse." [Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=_X4AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA303&dq=benjamin+rush+universalist&lr=&cd=13#v=onepage&q=benjamin%20rush%20universalist&f=false]
Bibliography from Bookrags.com
Bookrags.Com provides the following bibliography of Elihu Palmer
http://www.bookrags.com/research/palmer-elihu-17641806-eoph/
"Palmer's works include Political Miscellany (New York, 1793); The Examiners Examined: Being a Defence of the Age of Reason (New York: Printed for the author and sold by L. Wayland and J. Fellows, 1794); An Enquiry Relative to the Moral and Political Improvement of the Human Species (New York: John Crookes, 1797); The Political Happiness of Nations: An Oration (New York: n.p., 1800); Principles of Nature: Or, a Development of the Moral Causes of Happiness and Misery among the Human Species (New York, 1801); Prospect, or View of the Moral World for the Year 1804 (New York: E. Palmer, 1803–1805), which he edited; and Posthumous Pieces (London, 1826).
For literature on Palmer, see G. Adolf Koch, Republican Religion: The American Revolution and the Cult of Reason (New York: Holt, 1933)."
"Palmer rejected the claims of divine revelation, miracles, and prophesies, and he accused the Bible of inconsistency, contradiction, and vagueness. Not only did he deny the divinity of Christ, but he considered Jesus, Moses, and Muḥammad indecent and immoral and Christian salvation absurd and irrational. "
From my article "Huckabee and the U. S. Constitution" at atheology.com
After the Constitutional Convention finished its work, the Constitution was sent to the state legislatures for ratification. There was vigorous debate across the country, and it wasn’t missed by some Christians that the Constitution never mentioned God. When one woman confronted Alexander Hamilton about why God had been left out, Hamilton replied “Madam, we forgot!”
He was being facetious. The omission was intentional. It was thoroughly vetted, it was thoroughly debated; then the respective state legislatures endorsed the wording of the Constitution and it became the supreme law of the land.
When we look at the debates of which we have record, we see that as far as religion was concerned the biggest worry from opponents was that the Constitution didn’t specifically prevent an establishment of religion (a concern that would find its answer in the 1st amendment).
True enough, some had other worries. With “no religious test” for office allowed, a few opponents objected that a Jew, an atheist, a Mahometan (Muslim), a Catholic—god forbid, even the Pope—might be elected President. (Yes, this worry was actually expressed by opponents in the North Carolina legislature). Proponents made short work of such objections. An effort in Virginia to require belief in God was also turned down.
Equally unsuccessful was the Virginia initiative in April and May 1788 to change the wording of Article 6 itself. “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United Stares” became “no other religious test shall ever be required than a belief in the one only true God, who is the rewarder of the good, and the punisher of the evil.” This change was rejected. —The Godless Constitution: the Case Against Religious Correctness by Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore. W. W. Norton & Company New York/London.(1996) pp 37
And yes, a few Christians of the time echoed the complaint so often heard from evangelicals today: our nation needs to be based on God’s authority, not man’s, and the Constitution needs to say so explicitly. One example occurred in Connecticut in February of 1788, and the vigorous defense of the Constitution’s secular nature which followed makes plain, I believe, the Enlightenment temper of the times.
William Williams (whose prior opposition to the “no religious test” clause had apparently drawn strong reply), wrote a letter published Feb 11 in the Hartford American Mercury defending his objection (although he admitted “I would not wish to make it a capital objection”) to the clause. All he had intended to argue, he explained, was that the only religious test should be belief in God. Williams wrote,
When the clause in the 6th Article, which provides that “no religious test should ever be required as a qualification to any office Or trust, etc.” came under consideration, I observed I should have chose that sentence, and anything relating to a religious test, had been totally omitted rather than stand as it did; but still more wished something of the kind should have been inserted, but with a reverse sense so far as to require an explicit acknowledgment of the being of a God, His perfections, and His providence, and to have been prefixed to, and stand as, the first introductory words of the Constitution in the following or similar terms, viz.: We the people of the United Slates, in a firm belief of the being and perfections of the one living and true God, the creator and supreme Governor of the world, in His universal providence and the authority of His laws: that He will require of all moral agents an account of their conduct, that all rightful powers among men are ordained of, and mediately derived from God, therefore in a dependence on His blessing and acknowledgment of His efficient protection in establishing our Independence, whereby it is become necessary to agree upon and settle a Constitution of federal government for ourselves, and in order to form a more perfect union, etc., as it is expressed in the present introduction, do ordain, etc. And instead of none, that no other religious test should ever he required, etc. [source: The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, Vol. III. Ratification of the Constitution by the States Delaware, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Edited by Merrill Jensen, Madison State Historical Society of Wis, 1978, pp 588-590]
Huckabee, I imagine, and many of our current evangelicals, would heartily endorse Williams’ call to amend the preamble so that it acknowledges God in such fashion. So too, I suppose, would the Mullahs in Iraq. Nevertheless, this suggestion went nowhere in 1788. To understand why, I’d like to quote from a hearty reply Williams got from someone named Elihu.
Should any body of men, whose characters were unknown to me, form a plan of government, and prologue it with a long pharisaical harangue about God and religion, I should suspect a design to cheat and circumvent us, and their cant, and semblance of superior sanctity would be the ground of my suspicion. If they have a plan founded on good sense, wisdom, and experience, what occasion have they to make use of God, His providence, or religion, like old cunning monks to gain our assent to what is in itself rational and just?
Elihu continued
“There must be (tis objected) some proof, some evidence that we the people acknowledge the being of a God.” Is this a thing that wants proof? Is this a thing that wants constitutional establishment in the United States? It is almost the only thing that all universally are agreed in; everybody believes there is a God; not a man of common sense in the United States denies or disbelieves it.
This was probably true. In the 1780s, atheism in the former colonies was extremely rare if not bordering on non-existent. At any rate, argued Elihu, no Constitutional test for belief in God was required.
The fool hath said in his heart there is no God, but was there ever a wise man said such a thing? No, not in any age or in any country. Besides, if it was not so, if there were unbelievers, as it is a matter of faith, it might as well be admitted; for we are not to bind the consciences of men by laws or constitutions.
The mind is free; it may be convinced by reasoning, but cannot be compelled by laws or constitutions, no, nor by fire, faggot, or the halter.
We can forgive Elihu for not anticipating that the scientific study of geology, biology and genetics—and, yes, the theory of evolution—would eventually make atheism respectable among the best-educated Americans of the 20th and 21st centuries. As it turns out, it is wise men and women, not fools, who today are most likely to disbelieve.
Elihu finished his reply with words that could be as easily directed at the Huckabees and theocrats of our day as at the opponents of the Constitution 220 years ago.
The time has been when nations could be kept in awe with Stories of gods sitting with legislators and dictating laws; with this lure, cunning politicians have established their own power on the credulity of the people; shackling their uninformed minds with incredible tales. But the light of philosophy has arisen in these latter days, miracles have ceased, oracles are silenced, monkish darkness is dissipated, and even witches at last hide their heads. Mankind are no longer to be deluded with fable. Making the glory of God subservient to the temporal interest of men is a worn out trick, and a pretense to superior sanctity and special grace will not much longer promote weakness over the head of wisdom.
A low mind may imagine that God, like a foolish old man, will think himself slighted and dishonored if he is not complimented with a seat or a prologue of recognition in the Constitution, but those great philosophers who formed the Constitution had a higher idea of the perfection of that INFINITE MIND which governs all worlds than to suppose they could add to his honor or glory, or that He would be pleased with such low familiarity or vulgar flattery.
Elihu ends on a note of elegance comparable with what might have come from the pen of a Madison or Paine or Jefferson.
The most shining part, the most brilliant circumstance in honor of the framers of the Constitution is their avoiding all appearance of craft, declining to dazzle even the superstitious by a hint about grace or ghostly knowledge. They come to us in the plain language of common sense and propose to our understanding a system of government as the invention of mere human wisdom; no deity comes down to dictate it, nor even a God appears in a dream to propose any part of it. [source: The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, Vol. III. Ratification of the Constitution by the States Delaware, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Edited by Merrill Jensen, Madison State Historical Society of Wis, 1978, pp 590-592]
From Prospect, or view of the moral world:
Ignorance is not necessary to render men virtuous. If it were, we might reasonably conclude that virtue was an impostor, and that it was our duty to free ourselves from its shackles. The cultivation of the understanding has no tendency to corrupt the heart… It would be more plausible to say that the perpetual cultivation of the understanding will terminate in madness, than that it will terminate in vice. —Elihu Palmer, "Of the suppression of erroneous opinions of Religion and Government" in Prospect, or View of the moral world (p. 70), Vol 1, No. 9, Saturday, Feb 4th 1804
In the Feb. 18, 1804 issue (vol 1, no. 11) Elihu presents a reply by Thomas Paine to a sermon published in England by the minister Robert Hall called "Modern Infidelity". Paine wrote:
The preacher of the foregoing sermon speaks a great deal about infidelity, but does not define what he means by it. His harangue is a general exclamation. Every thing, I suppose, that is not in his creed is infidelity with him, and his creed is infidelity with me. Infidelity is believing falsely. If what christians believe is not true, it is the christians that are the infidels.
The point between deists and christians is not about doctrine, but about fact—for if the things believed by the christians to be facts, are not facts, the doctrine founded thereon falls of itself. There is such a book as the bible, but is it a fact that the bible is revealed religion? The christians cannot prove it is. They put tradition in place of evidence, and tradition is not proof. If it were, the reality of witches could be proved by the same kind of evidence.
The bible is a history of the times of which it speaks, and history is not revelation. The obscene and vulgar stories in the bible are as repugnant to our ideas of the purity of a divine Being, as the horrid cruelties and murders it ascribes to him, are repugnant to our ideas of his justice. It is the reverence of the Deists for the attributes of the Deity, that causes them to reject the bible.
…
Is it a fact that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world, and how is it proved? If a God he could not die, and as a man he could not redeem, how then is this redemption proved to be fact?
…
This story of the redemption will not stand examination. That man should redeem himself from the sin of eating an apple, by committing murder on Jesus Christ, is the strangest system of religion ever set up. Deism is perfect purity compared to this. It is an established principle with the quakers not to shed blood—suppose then all Jerusalem had been quakers when Christ lived, there would have been nobody to crucify him, and in that case, if man is redeemed by his blood, which is the belief of the church, there could have been no redemption—and the people of Jerusalem must all have been damned, because they were too good to murder. The christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense. Why is man afraid to think?
Why do not the christians, to be consistent, make saints of Judas and Pontius Pilate, for they were the persons who accomplished the act of salvation. The merit of a sacrifice, if there can be any merit in it, was never in the thing sacrificed, but in the person offering up the sacrifice—and therefore Judas and Pontius Pilate ought to stand first on the calendar of saints. —Thomas Paine
from vol 1 no.13 Sat. March 3, 1804:
Believe or be damned was the first christian Authority, and believe or be burned was the next, as soon as they had power to make it and put it in execution. To hate friends and relations for Christ's sake, is a true christian doctrine—and consequently, to persecute and burn them for Christ's sake, is a true christian spirit. —Elihu Palmer "Resurrection of Jesus" in Prospect, vol 1 no.13 Sat. March 3, 1804
from: Chants democratic: New York City and the rise of the American working class, by Sean Wilentz, page 78:
To the shock of Federalist leaders and orthodox clerics, Elihu Palmer, a blind itinerant preacher, managed to turn his newspaper, the Temple of Reason, into the leading exponent of early national American free thought. Lambasting Christianity as an instrument of despotism, Palmer (in time with the help of Thomas Paine) blended humanistic ethics and the natural religion of Paine's Age of Reason in a celebration of science and republican equality: "Poverty and riches, misery and happiness, are generally the results and consequences of good or bad governments—of wise or unwise laws—of the influence of virtue, or the prevalence of vice; and all the natural offsprings of human actions, not the partial operations of an all-just and all-wise Being." [Temple of Reason, New York, Dec 6, 1800] Drawn from both the French and from the rich body of English Dissenting skepticism, Palmer's American deism attracted a mixture of home-grown merchant philosophies, liberal professionals, and artisans (with their own backgrounds in workshop science and democratic politics.) Their numbers were hardly overwhelming. Even in the libertarian milieu of the Democratic Society (of which Palmer was a member) at best a handful of activists joined the deists. The milder Unitarianism of Joseph Priestley (welcomed by the Democratic-Republicans upon his arrival in New York as an exile in 1795) was better suited to New York's unorthodox democrats; when the Republican Patriotic Junior Association toasted Thomas Paine in 1979, it celebrated The Rights of Man but condemned The Age of Reason. The deists' real impact reached beyond their followers to reinforce more widespread and nebulous anticlerical suspicions.