Chapter IV: The Illuminati Agitation in New England (4)

[777] The concluding sections of the sermon were devoted to (a) a depiction of the awful calamities which would come upon America if ever French armies were permitted to work their remorseless ravages here, and (b) an analysis of the duties which arose out of the dangers that had been presented. The duties named required one (1) to stand by one’s post of duty, despite the gloomy but not utterly hopeless aspect of affairs; (2) to avoid all political connections with those nations which seem devoted by Providence to destruction, and to make a zealous effort “to watch their movements, and detect and expose the machinations of their numerous emissaries among us; to reject, as we would the most deadly poison, their atheistical and destructive principles in whatever way or shape they may be insinuated among us;” and, _especially_, (3) to promote the election to offices of trust of only such men as have “good principles and morals, who respect religion and love their country, who will be a terror to evil doers, and will encourage such as do well.”

[778] _Ibid._, p. 34. For the benefit of his readers, Morse supplied the following translation:

“At the East of the Lodge of Portsmouth in
Virginia, the 17th of the 5th month, in the
ear of (V∴ L∴) True Light 5798./:

The (R∴ L∴ Pte∴ Fse∴) respectable French
Provincial Lodge, regularly appointed under the
distinctive title of WISDOM, No. 2660 by the
GRAND ORIENT OF FRANCE.
To
The (T∴ R∴ L∴) very respectable French Lodge,
The Union, No. 14, constituted by the _Grand
Orient_ of New-York.

S∴ F∴ V∴
TT∴ CC∴ and RR∴ FF∴

The plate or opening (_la planche_) with which you have favoured us in date of the 16th of the 2nd month of the current year (Mque∴) Masonic, came to us but a few days since. It was laid before our (R∴ L∴) respectable Lodge, at its extraordinary session on the 14th inst.

We congratulate you TT∴ CC∴ FF∴ upon the new Constitutions or Regulations which you have obtained from the Grand Orient of New York. We will therefore make it our pleasure and duty to maintain the most fraternal or intimate Correspondence with your (R∴ L∴) respectable Lodge; as also with all the regular Lodges who are willing to favour us with theirs.

It is on this ground (_a ce titre_) that we think it our duty to inform you of the establishment of two new Masonic workshops (_attellieres_) regularly constituted and installed according to the French ritual, by our Provincial (R∴ L∴) respectable Lodge; one, more than a year since, under the title of Friendship in the East side of Petersburg in Virginia; the other more recent, under the title of PERFECT EQUALITY, in the East of Port de Paix in the Island of St. Domingo.

We herewith transmit to you some copies of our List (_Tableau_) for this year, which our Lodge prays you to accept in return for those which it hath received from your Lodge with thankfulness.

May the Grand Architect of the Universe bless your labours, and crown them with all manner of success. With these sentiments we have the favour to be,

P∴ L∴ N∴ M∴ Q∴ V∴ S∴ C∴
TT∴ CC∴ and TT∴ RR∴ FF∴
Your very affectionate FF∴
By order of the very respectable
Provincial Lodge of Wisdom,
Guieu,
Secretary.”
Morse’s _Sermon_, p. 35.

[779] These documents may be found on pp. 36–45 of Morse’s _Sermon_. For the motto Morse supplied the following translation: “_Men believe their eyes farther than their ears. The way by precept is long, but short and efficaceous by example._” (_Ibid._, pp. 46 _et seq._)

[780] _Ibid._, pp. 46 _et seq._

[781] _Ibid._, p. 46.

[782] Morse’s _Sermon_, p. 46.

[783] _Ibid._

[784] _Ibid._

[785] _Ibid._

[786] Morse’s _Sermon_, p. 46.

[787] _Ibid._, pp. 46 _et seq._

[788] _Ibid._, p. 47.

[789] _Ibid._

[790] _Ibid._

[791] Naturally, Morse had not failed to make use of his European authorities in preparing his sermon for the eyes of the general public. There was, of course, no new evidence to be derived from this source.

[792] Morse’s _Sermon_, p. 48. The immediate source from which Morse obtained the documents of which he made such large and confident use in this sermon, constitutes an interesting subject of inquiry. Happily that source is fully disclosed in the following extract from a letter which Morse addressed to Wolcott, Dec. 6, 1799:

... I wish all the evidence whh can be procured to substantiate the
truth of what I have published. As the documents came through your
hands, I have thought it proper to apply to you on the subject,
as well as for evidence as for your advice as to the manner of
exhibiting it.—I wish only to be assisted in defending myself to
the satisfaction of candid & good men.” (_Wolcott Papers_, vol.
viii, 30.)

The canniness of Oliver Wolcott’s Federalism is quite as much illuminated by this letter as is Jedediah Morse’s caution and generosity in assuming responsibility for the publication of the documents referred to. That Wolcott had been instrumental in furnishing Morse’s quiver with the arrows which Morse discharged from his bow on the occasion of the 1799 fast, was soon suspected in Democratic circles. _Cf._ _Aurora_, Feb. 14, 1800. (In this connection it may be remarked that Wolcott was not the only New England Federalist who came into possession of portions of the correspondence of Wisdom Lodge. The _Pickering MSS._, vol. xlii, 37, presents a copy of another letter which in this instance was sent by the Portsmouth lodge to the lodge Verity and Union, in Philadelphia. The letter bears date of April 12, 1798. Its value for the purposes of this investigation is _nil_. How it came to be in Pickering’s possession is not known. The implication is strong that the Federalists were eager to exploit the documents to the utmost.)

[793] As far as the records show, no other minister in New England may be said to have spoken emphatically upon the subject on the occasion of the fast. It was Morse alone who galvanized the issue into new life. The general tenor of the utterances of the clergy on the day of the fast may be judged from the following typical examples. At Concord, the Reverend Hezekiah Packard, who made it known that he had read Dr. Morse’s thanksgiving sermon and its appendix, descanted on the dangers to be apprehended from the existence of foreign intrigue among the citizens of this country. His language was general, though certainly expressive of profound concern. _Cf._ _Federal Republicanism, Displayed in Two Discourses, preached on the day of the State Fast at Chelmsford, and on the day of the National Fast at Concord, in April, 1799._ By Hezekiah Packard, pastor of the church in Chelmsford. Boston, 1799. At Franklin, Mass., the Reverend Nathaniel Emmons discoursed in similar vein. The French were pointed out as a nation which had corrupted every people whom they had subjugated. Further, Emmons asserted that things were happening in the United States which made it certain “some men [were] behind the curtain ... pushing on the populace to open sedition and rebellion.” No direct reference to the Illuminati was made, however. _Cf._ _A Discourse, delivered on the National Fast, April 25, 1799._ By Nathaniel Emmons, D. D., pastor of the church in Franklin. Wrentham, Mass., 1799, p. 23. The pastor of the church in Braintree had also been reading Morse’s thanksgiving sermon. However, he had no definite word to speak on the subject of the Illuminati. France, he said, had her secret friends here, and the real truth of her designs were hidden from the American people. _Cf._ _A Discourse, delivered April 25, 1799; being the day of Fasting and Prayer throughout the United States of America._ By Ezra Weld, A. M., pastor of the church in Braintree. Boston, 1799. At Newburyport, the Reverend Daniel Dana saw an exceedingly dark and ominous situation confronting him and his hearers. He spoke of a “deep-laid infernal scheme to hunt Christianity from the globe.” It was his firm belief that all the foundations of religion and morality were frightfully imperiled. But he gave no clear intimation that he was thinking of the Illuminati. _Two Sermons, delivered April 25, 1799; the day recommended by the President of the United States for National Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer._ By Daniel Dana, A. M., pastor of a church in Newburyport. Newburyport, 1799, p. 45. In addition to Morse there was at least one other exception to the general reticence. A congregation at Sullivan, N. H.(?), heard a sermon full of wild and hysterical utterances, containing frequent references to the Illuminati, to Robison and Barruel, with much stress laid upon the lugubrious idea that the church in America was about to drink a cup of persecution exceedingly bitter. This sermon, however, was much too irrational to be of special significance. _The Present Times Perilous. A Sermon, preached at Sullivan, on the National Fast, April 25, 1799._ By Abraham Cummings, A. M., (n. d.). It would not be altogether incorrect to observe that the New England clergy, on the occasion of the national fast of 1799, took their cue direct from the President’s proclamation rather than from the literature which had previously been published on the subject of Illuminism.

[794] This is certainly a reasonable inference from the fact that the interest of the public in Morse’s sermon made necessary four different issues of it during the year in which it appeared. One of these was printed at Charlestown, another at Boston, a third at Hartford, and a fourth at New York.

[795] Here it may be noted that when Morse’s sermon appeared in print, it was accompanied by a note setting forth the author’s account of the progress of his thought regarding the Illuminati. In part the note ran as follows: “In my Discourse on the National Fast, May 9th., 1798, after giving some account of Robison’s _Proofs of a Conspiracy, etc._, a work which had just arrived in America, I said, ‘There are too many evidences that this order [the Illuminati] has had its branches established, in some form or other, and its emissaries secretly at work in this country, for several years past.’

“Being often publicly called upon for evidence to support this insinuation, I engaged, when my health and leisure would permit, to lay it before the public. This engagement was in part fulfilled, in the Appendix to my Thanksgiving _Sermon_ of Nov. 29, 1798, Note (F), p. 73, to which I refer the reader.

“Since this I have received a letter from President Dwight, confirming the fact which he had asserted in a note to his Discourse of the 4th of July, 1798, viz, that ‘Illuminatism exists in this country; and the impious mockery of the Sacramental Supper described by Mr. Robison has been enacted here.’ ...

“But if all this evidence, added to that which arises _prima facie_ from the existing state of things; from the wonderful and alarming change which has been suddenly and imperceptibly produced too generally in the principles and morals of the American people, be insufficient to convince and satisfy candid minds of the actual existence, and secret and extensive operation, of Illuminatism in this country, the following documents which were received through a most respectable channel, and for the authenticity of which I pledge myself, must, I conceive, remove every doubt remaining in the minds of reasonable men. If any branches of this Society are established in this part of the United States, the members no doubt will feel irritated at this disclosure, and will use all their secret arts, and open endeavours, to diminish the importance of these documents and the reputation of him who makes them public.” (Note B, pp. 33 _et seq._) The note concludes with a solemn statement by its author to the effect that he stands prepared to sacrifice all, even his life if necessary, for the cause of religion and his country. See also the preface of the sermon.

[796] _Wolcott Papers_, vol. viii, 26.

[797] _Wolcott Papers_, vol. viii, 26.

[798] On the very day of the national fast the editor of the _Chronicle_ busied himself at his familiar task of rebuking the clergy on account of their practice of indulging in “political preaching”. The latter were again admonished to confine their attention to the divine book of Revelation and to abandon their interest in the reveries of Robison. This, however, was only such a jibe as had intermittently issued from this source.

[799] _Independent Chronicle_, May 9, 1799.

[800] _Ibid._

[801] _Independent Chronicle_, May 30, 1799.

[802] _Ibid._

[803] _Ibid._

[804] _Ibid._, June 10, 1799.

[805] _Cf._ especially the _Independent Chronicle_ of May 9, 13, 16, 20, 27, 30, and June 3, 6, 10, 13, 1799.

[806] _Ibid._, May 13, 1799.

[807] _Independent Chronicle_, May 20, 1799.

[808] _Cf. supra_, pp. 281 _et seq._

[809] The ship Ocean was a vessel of the United States concerning which, in the spring of 1799, the statement got into circulation that it had been captured by the French and every soul on board foully murdered. No such massacre actually took place. Morse, however, heard the story, believed it, and made reference to it in his fast sermon of April 25, 1799. Later, and not unnaturally, he became disturbed over the part he had played in giving publicity to the story. His integrity, he believed, was involved; likewise the faith of the public in other pronouncements he had made, _e. g._ with regard to the Illuminati. See _Wolcott Papers_, vol. viii, 27. And this was the view of the case that his enemies took. _Cf._ for instance, the _Aurora_, June 6, 1799.

[810] _American Mercury_, June 6, 1799.

[811] Printed at Walpole, N. H.

[812] _American Mercury_, Aug. 29, 1799. _Cf._ also _The Bee_ (New Haven), Aug. 21, 1799.

[813] _Cf._ issue of May 7, 1799.

[814] _Cf._ issue of May 10, 1799.

[815] _Connecticut Courant_, May 27, 1799.

[816] _An Oration delivered at Ridgefield on the Fourth of July, 1799, before a large concourse of people, assembled to commemorate their National Independence._ By David Edmond. Danbury ... MDCCXCIX, p. 10.

[817] _An Oration, on the Apparent and the Real Political Situation of the United States, pronounced before the Connecticut Society of the Cincinnati, assembled at New-Haven ... July 4th, 1799._ By Zechariah Lewis, ... New-Haven, 1799, p. 16.

[818] _An Oration spoken at Hartford ... on the Anniversary of American Independence, July 4th, A. D., 1799._ By William Brown. Hartford ... 1799, pp. 6 _et seqq._

[819] _An Oration, pronounced July 4th, 1799, at the request of the Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, in Commemoration of the Anniversary of American Independence._ By John Lowell, Junior. Boston, 1799, p. 21.

[820] _An Oration, delivered before the citizens of Portland ... on the Fourth of July, 1799_ ... By A. Stoddard. Portland, 1799, pp. 10, 11, 13, 29 _et seq._

[821] _An Oration delivered at Byfield, July 4, 1799._ By Rev. Elijah Parish, A. M. Newburyport (n. d.).

[822] _An Oration, delivered at Roxbury, July 4, 1799. In Commemoration of American Independence._ By Thomas Beedé. Boston, 1799.

[823] The _Connecticut Courant_ of June 10, 1799, carried to its readers the announcement that “the IIIrd volume of the History of Jacobinism” had just been received by Messrs. Hudson & Goodwin, the editors, and, along with volumes i and ii, was on sale.

[824] Jedediah Morse was certainly one of those who hoped for much from the appearance of Barruel’s work in America. On October 3, 1799, he wrote to the American publishers of the _Memoirs of Jacobinism_, expressing his gratification over the receipt of six copies of volumes i and ii (bound in one) of the same, and arranging to have the remaining volumes forwarded to him at the earliest possible date. _Cf._ Morse’s letter to Messrs. Hudson & Goodwin, in the _Ford Collection_, New York Public Library. Morse’s urgency in the case is partly explained by the fact that at this time he was being drawn deeply into the Ebeling-Huntington-Babcock-Bentley-Morse controversy, to be noticed below.

[825] _Wolcott Papers_, vol. v, 77. _Cf._ _Salem Gazette_, Aug. 13, 1799.

[826] _Cf._ the issues of the _Courant_ for June 24, July 1, 8, 15, 29, Aug. 5, 12, 19, 26, Sept. 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, Oct. 7, 1799. The partisan object in view in making and publishing this abridgment of Barruel is thinly veiled in the following statement of the editors: “We have not, indeed, much to apprehend from external invasion, but our greatest dangers arise from a disorganizing party among ourselves, who will recognize no government, except in bacchanalian curses, and the sanguinary notions of a blind, seditious, and corrupted crowd—who will be guided by no laws except what are conceived in the womb of crime, the weakness and absurdity of which will be calculated to establish the reign of licentiousness, and consolidate the empire of sedition and conspiracy.” (_Connecticut Courant_, July 8, 1798.)

[827] _Cf._ the issues of the _Mercury_ for July 30, Aug. 9, 13, 16, 20, 27, Sept. 3, 6, 17, 24, Oct. 1, 8, 22, 29, 1799. Other papers, the _Columbian Centinel_, for example, began the publication of the Abridgement, but discontinued the series before the end was reached.

[828] The entire indifference to the Abridgement which many New England editors manifested was the occasion of no little disappointment and chagrin on the part of those who had hoped for material assistance and comfort from this source. _Cf._ _Connecticut Courant_, July 22, 1799. With regard to the general impression which the _Memoirs of Jacobinism_ made in this country, the comments of Thomas Jefferson are of interest. Though based upon an imperfect acquaintance with Barruel’s work, considerable sound criticism is expressed. “I have lately by accident got sight of a single volume (the 3d.) of the Abbé Barruel’s ‘Antisocial Conspiracy’, which gives me the first idea I have ever had of what is meant by the Illuminatism against which ‘Illuminate Morse’, as he is now called, and his ecclesiastical and monarchical associates have been making such a hue and cry. Barruel’s own parts of the book are perfectly the ravings of a Bedlamite. But he quotes largely from Wishaupt [_sic_] whom he considers the founder of what he calls the order ... Wishaupt seems to be an enthusiastic philanthropist. He is among those (as you know the excellent Price and Priestley also are) who believe in the infinite perfectibility of man. He thinks he may in time be rendered so perfect that he will be able to govern himself in every circumstance, so as to injure none, to do all the good he can, to leave government no occasion to exercise their powers over him, and, of course, to render political government useless. This, you know, is Godwin’s doctrine, and this is what Robison, Barruel, and Morse have called a conspiracy against all government.... The means he proposes to effect this improvement of human nature are ‘to enlighten men, to correct their morals and inspire them with benevolence’. As Wishaupt lived under the tyranny of a despot and priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, and the principles of pure morality. He proposed, therefore, to lead the Free Masons to adopt this object.... This has given an air of mystery to his views, was the foundation of his banishment, the subversion of the Masonic Order, and is the color for the ravings against him of Robison, Barruel, and Morse, whose _real fears are that the craft_ would be endangered by the spreading of information, reason, and natural morality among men.... I believe you will think with me that if Wishaupt had written here, where no secrecy is necessary in our endeavours to render men wise and virtuous, he would not have thought of any secret machinery for that purpose ... ”. (_The Writings of Thomas Jefferson_, vol. vii, p. 419: Letter to Bishop James Madison.)

[829] Christopher D. Ebeling (1741–1817) was a German geographer and historian who was greatly interested in everything relating to America. In 1794 he was elected a corresponding member of the Massachusetts Historical Society. He was in correspondence with such public characters in America as Morse, Dr. Jeremy Belknap, President Stiles, and Thomas Jefferson. After his death, Ebeling’s large and valuable library became the property of Harvard University.

[830] _Cf. op. cit._

[831] _Ibid._

[832] _American Mercury_, Sept. 26, 1799. The entire article was well calculated to nettle the feelings of Morse. He was referred to therein as “a celebrated calumniator of Masonry” and “an eagle-eyed detector of Illuminatism.” The concluding statement was peculiarly humiliating and irritating: “Many people wonder why the Rev. Granny, who has officiated at the birth of so many _mice_ (when Mountains have travailed), had not published the letter he has lately received from Professor Ebeling: many others suppose he will publish it as an Appendix to his next Fast-Day Sermon.” In addition to the _American Mercury_, the _Bee_ and the _Aurora_ both published this account of the Ebeling-Morse letter. _Cf._ the edition of the former for Oct. 9, 1799, and of the latter for Nov. 25, Dec. 6, 9, 1799. Thus wide publicity was given to the matter, on account of which Morse was justly aroused.

[833] _American Mercury_, Nov. 7, 1799 _Cf._ _Columbian Centinel_, Nov. 23, 1799.

[834] Morse’s letter to Babcock, editor of the _American Mercury_, bore date of October 4, 1799. It drew no further response from Babcock than a private epistle, calling upon Morse to refute the statements which had appeared in the Mercury, and promising that then the editor’s “man” would be produced. _Cf._ _American Mercury_, Nov. 7, 1799.

[835] _American Mercury_, Nov. 14, 1799. _Cf._ _Columbian Centinel_, Nov. 23, 1799.

[836] _American Mercury_, Nov. 14, 1799. The affidavits of Tappan and Pearson were actually offered in evidence later. _Cf._ _Connecticut Courant_, May 19, 1800; _Massachusetts Mercury_, May 23, 1800.

[837] _Cf._ the issue of this paper for Sept. 30, 1799.

[838] _Ibid._, Nov. 4, 1799.

[839] _Cf._ article by “Candidus” in the issue of this paper for Nov. 23, 1799.

[840] _Cf._ the issue of this paper for Dec. 27, 1799.

[841] _Cf._ _Bee_, Nov. 20, 1799.

[842] _Ibid._

[843] _Ibid._, Nov. 20, 27, 1799.

[844] _Ibid._, Nov. 20, 1799.

[845] _Cf._ _Aurora_, Nov. 16, 25, Dec. 6, 9, 1799.

[846] _Ibid._, Nov. 16, 1799.

[847] _Ibid._

[848] _Ibid._

[849] This fact was acknowledged by Ebeling. _Cf. Ebeling MSS._: Ebeling’s letters to Bentley, July 28, 1800; July 1, 1801.

[850] From 1798 on, Bentley’s _Diary_ is replete with ill-tempered and abusive references to Morse. _Cf._ for example, vol. ii, pp. 278, 291, 296, 302, 329, 334, 384, 391; vol. iii. pp. 9, 32, 141, 149, 217, 218, 342, 357 _et seq._, 431; vol. iv, pp. 209, 241. Bentley’s enthusiastic devotion to Freemasonry and his rancorous republicanism were largely responsible for his personal feeling towards Morse; but there also appears to have been a disagreeable and petty personal element in the situation. Bentley was peevish and spiteful towards Morse because he believed that the latter had stirred up one of the creditors of the elder Bentley to attempt to collect a debt from the son. _Cf._ Bentley, _Diary_, vol. iv, pp. 241 _et seq._ Even before the Illuminati agitation broke out in New England, Bentley found it impossible to repress his low opinion of Morse as a geographer and as a man. _Cf. ibid._, vol. ii, pp. 64, 70.

[851] _Cf._ _Ebeling MSS._: Ebeling’s letter to Bentley, March 13, 1799.

[852] _Ibid._: Ebeling’s letter to Bentley, March 23, 1799.

[853] _Ibid._

[854] In view of the fact that Ebeling had instructed Bentley that his letter was not to be given to the public, and that if by any chance it should find its way into print, it was to be expurgated and presented to the public only in part, he felt aggrieved at Bentley for paying attention to none of his instructions. Ebeling’s great fear seems to have been that his mention of living personages in European politics would be likely to create serious embarrassments. Nevertheless, he assured Bentley that he was not disposed to be deeply hurt over the appearance of the letter in the American press. _Cf. ibid._: Ebeling’s letters to Bentley, July 28, 1800, July 1, 1801.

[855] Morse had ample justification for thinking himself thoroughly ill-used in this situation. The embarrassment that he experienced over the appearance of the letter in the _Aurora_ and the _Bee_ was enhanced by the fact that the account of the Ebeling-Morse letter published in the _American Mercury_, which tallied with the _Aurora-Bee_ letter, was due to a confidence that Morse had given to a man whom he supposed to be friendly to his cause. A certain Samuel Huntington had visited him, to whom Morse read the letter he had received from Ebeling. Trusting to his memory, Huntington afterwards sent a communication to the _American Mercury_, purporting to contain a true account of the epistle that Morse had read to him. _Cf._ _Bentley Correspondence_, vol. i, 40: J. Eliot’s letter to Bentley, July 26, 1802. _Cf._ _The Mercury and New-England Palladium_ [successor to the _Massachusetts Mercury_], April 28, 1801.

[856] The agitation against Morse became highly abusive and threatening. He was made the recipient of scurrilous and intimidating epistles, which did not stop short of promising physical chastisement. _Cf._ _Wolcott Papers_, vol. viii, 32, for a specimen of such documents. _Cf. ibid._, 30: Morse’s letter to Wolcott, Dec. 6, 1799.

[857] _Wolcott Papers_, 31. _Cf._ _National Magazine, or a Political, Historical, Biographical, and Literary Repository_, vol. ii, pp. 26 _et seq._: article by _Philalethes_. Parker’s observations are fully corroborated by this pseudonymous writer. That Wisdom Lodge was a regular Masonic lodge, organized under the _Grand Orient_ of France, is further testified to by Mackey, _The History of Free Masonry_, vol, v, p. 1420. Treudley, _The United States and Santa Domingo, 1789–1866_, pp. 111–125, adequately presents the essential facts bearing on the presence of the French refugees in the United States.

[858] _Wolcott Papers_, vol. viii, 31.

[859] Payson (1753–1820) was a Harvard graduate, who located at Rindge in 1782, and continued in the pastorate at that place until death removed him, forty-eight years later.

[860] _Proofs of the Real Existence, and Dangerous Tendency, of Illuminism. Containing an abstract of the most interesting parts of what Dr. Robison and the Abbe Barruel have published on this subject; with collateral proofs and general observations._ By Seth Payson, A. M., Charlestown, 1802.

[861] _Ibid._, pp. iii, 217 _et seq._, 245 _et seq._

4. FREEMASONRY’S EMBARRASSMENT AND PROTEST

Freemasonry in New England, as throughout the United States in general, was very far from being in a favorable condition when the Illuminati controversy broke out. Like every other institution in the country, it had suffered greatly on account of the American Revolution. The membership of its lodges was depleted, and its affairs generally left in a chaotic condition. In the period of reconstruction which followed the Revolution, Masonry experienced the same difficulty in rebuilding its organizations and investing them with a fair degree of importance in the public eye as other social institutions of the times. To no little extent, this was due to internal dissensions and disintegrating tendencies generally. In the main these dissensions developed out of efforts which were made to create grand lodges of native origin, endowed with powers of sovereignty, to take the place in the system of American Masonry that formerly had been accorded to the grand lodges of England and Scotland. The spirit of independence communicated by the revolutionary struggle had to be reckoned with by Masonic leaders in their efforts to give unity and solidity to the system.[862]

But other concerns than those of organization engaged the attention of those who sought the rehabilitation of the institution. In the literature of the times appears more than one stinging reference to the reproach under which Freemasonry rested on account of the low standards of conduct by which the private lives of its members and its assemblies were marked. Coarseness, profligacy, boisterousness, and conviviality, which in the latter case did not stop short of drunken revels, were common indictments brought against the lodges by friend and foe alike.[863] It cannot be doubted that a considerable amount of the kind of rude and unlicensed behavior that displayed itself about many a New England tavern of the period was likewise to be observed in connection with the private and public performances of the craft.

To this must be added another and, from our special point of view, more serious criticism. The spirit of democracy, it should not be forgotten, was working itself out in the common life of the times in manifold ways. The idea of human equality had become the very touchstone of life. New applications of this conception were constantly being made. In such a day it was inevitable that the secret and exclusive character of the assemblies and practices of Freemasonry should make that institution widely suspected. Members of the fraternity were freely accused of supporting an institution that failed to respond to the spirit of the times.[864] As a result of the stir occasioned by Washington’s bold denunciation of “self-created societies,” in 1794, this charge of dangerous and unjustifiable secrecy became a more powerful weapon in the hands of Freemasonry’s enemies, whose blows were by no means easy to avoid.

That a retrograde movement was on in the ranks of American Masonry at the time the Illuminati controversy broke out is, however, by no means to be inferred. In most particulars, the faults and weaknesses which have been noted represented common faults and weaknesses of the times. On the whole, as the eighteenth century drew to its close, Freemasonry in this country appeared to be slowly working its way up out of the state of disorganization and weakness by which its progress had been retarded during the two decades that followed the Revolutionary War. It was in a day characterized by earnest and worthy striving, though not without its tokens of popular suspicion, that the accusation of an alliance with the odious Illuminati fell as a black shadow across its path.

The response which Massachusetts Masonry made to the aspersions of Robison and his supporters[865] on this side of the ocean was promptly forthcoming. On June 11, 1798, the Grand Lodge of that state drew up an address to President Adams, from which the following generous extract is taken:

_Sir_:—

Flattery, and a discussion of political opinions, are inconsistent
with the principles of this ancient Fraternity; but while we are
bound to cultivate benevolence, and extend the arm of charity to
our brethren of every clime, we feel the strongest obligations
to support the civil authority which protects us. And when the
illiberal attacks of a foreign enthusiast, aided by the unfounded
prejudices of his followers, are tending to embarrass the public
mind with respect to the real views of our society, we think it
our duty to join in full concert with our fellow-citizens, in
expressing gratitude to the Supreme Architect of the Universe, for
endowing you with the wisdom, patriotic firmness and integrity,
which has characterized your public conduct.

While the Independence of our country and the operation of just
and equal laws have contributed to enlarge the sphere of social
happiness, we rejoice that our Masonic brethren, throughout the
United States, have discovered by their conduct a zeal to promote
the public welfare, and that many of them have been conspicuous for
their talents and unwearied exertions. Among these your venerable
successor is the most illustrious example; and the memory of our
beloved Warren,[866] who from the chair of this Grand Lodge,
has often urged the members to the exercise of patriotism and
philanthropy, and who sealed his principles with his blood; shall
ever animate us to a laudable imitation of his virtues.[867]

In addition to this formal action taken by the Grand Lodge, prominent Massachusetts Masons began at once to employ such public occasions as the calendar and special events of the order supplied, to refute the charge that Masonry was in league with Illuminism. Preëminent among these apologists were the Reverend William Bentley and the Reverend Thaddeus Mason Harris.[868]

On the occasion of the Masonic festival of St. John the Baptist, June 25, 1798, Bentley delivered a charge before Morning Star Lodge, at Worcester, Massachusetts.[869] The clergy, he maintained,—not all the clergy, to be sure, but particularly those representatives of the clergy “who ply the shuttle-cock of faith, with the dexterity of expert gamesters, and have the art of making the multitude fly with its feathers,”—are responsible for this new out-cry against the order.[870] It is the state of affairs in Europe that has caused general attention to be drawn to the order. During the century Masonry has flourished there in a remarkable way. In the midst of an age full of apprehension respecting everything that suggests political association, this rapid progress of Freemasonry, the character of its members, the coincidence of its designs, and its secrecy, have quite naturally conspired to give some appearance of danger. Yet no discoveries have been made which can fairly impeach the fraternity.[871] As for the principles and work of Weishaupt, these ought not to be condemned outright, solely on the testimony of Robison.[872] “We must leave Robison to an inquisitive public,” Bentley concluded, and “forgive a worthy divine who has noticed the book, and has made our order ridiculous.”[873]

Somewhat later in the year Harris delivered a number of addresses, in connection with the consecration of various lodges, in which he paid sufficient attention to the new issue that had been raised to make it clear that Masonic circles were greatly disturbed.[874] To Harris, this last assault upon the good name of Masonry was a most unreasonable performance; yet all he felt prepared to do was to enter a general denial, couched in a bombastic, windy style of utterance, of which the following is typical:

How much ... are we surprised to find opposers to an association
whose law is peace, and whose whole disposition is love; which is
known to discourage by an express prohibition the introduction and
discussion of political or religious topics in its assemblies; and
which forbids in the most positive and solemn manner all plots,
conspiracies, and rebellions. But, notwithstanding the ignorant
mistake, and the prejudiced censure the society, we are persuaded
that its _real_ character is too well known, and its credit is
too well supported, to be injured by their misrepresentations,
or destroyed by their invectives. When they charge us with
demoralizing principles, we will tell them that some of the most
orthodox and respectable _Clergymen_ are of our order; and when
they impute to us disorganizing attempts, we will remind them that
Washington is our patron and friend.[875]

Much more of like character issued from this source.[876] We shall see, however, that the keen invective and unrestrained sarcasm of Bentley, rather than the platitudes of the amiable Harris, were needed to put Masonry’s case before the public in an effective manner.

On the same occasion that the “Author of the Worcester Charge”[877] made his first formal answer to Robison and Morse, at least two other addresses were delivered, each of which require a word. One of these, _mirabile dictu!_ was by Jedediah Morse.[878] Morse’s “sermon” was dull and insipid enough. There was much talk about the cultivation and diffusion of the love of country, the duty of essaying the rôle of the peacemaker, and the wickedness of spreading base slanders and exciting unreasonable prejudices among one’s fellows; but no discussion of the subject of Illuminism was attempted. All that was said was in entire good spirit, and but one consideration entitles Morse’s performance to mention: the fact that its setting as well as its substance gave evidence of its author’s earnest desire not to see the gulf widen between him and his Masonic neighbors.

The other address was different. Masonic Brother Charles Jackson, addressing the members and friends of St. Peter’s Lodge, Newburyport, Massachusetts, showed no disposition to mince words with respect to the detractors of Freemasonry.[879] Robison was reprobated by him for launching “illiberal sarcasms” against the fraternity,[880] and particularly for making out the Masonic lodges to be “hot-beds of sedition and impiety,” which the orator indignantly averred they were not.[881] It was granted that certain profligate and abandoned characters, as Robison claimed, had assumed the cloak of Masonry, with a view of shrouding their infernal plans under pretences of philanthropy and benevolence; but these men soon threw off this cloak, and there was no reason why Masonry should be sacrificed on their account.[882] The charges of atheism and unpatriotic spirit among the members of the fraternity were repelled with equal warmth by Jackson. As with Harris, these calumnies were countered, the charge of atheism by the fact that many of the clergy were members of the order, and the charge of unpatriotic spirit by the fact that Washington was the “illustrious brother” of American Masons.[883]

To a very limited extent the press was resorted to, in order that New England Masonry might have a chance to square itself before the public. The call for specific evidence that was made upon Morse, as voiced in the _Massachusetts Mercury_ of July 27, 1798, and Morse’s prolix but ineffective effort to meet the situation this created, have already been noticed.[884] In the course of the newspaper discussion referred to, the name of another prominent Mason of Massachusetts, the Reverend Josiah Bartlett, was drawn into the controversy.[885] To Morse’s somewhat unmanly plaint that “by necessary implication” he had been accused by the Massachusetts Masons before the President as being under the influence of unfounded prejudices, Bartlett made the conciliatory, though artful, response that the address of the Grand Lodge, to which Morse referred, was designed merely as a manly avowal of the true principles of Freemasonry. It was not necessary to believe, he continued, that they were influenced by irritation or resentment in making the _Address_, nor that Dr. Morse had hostile designs in the delivery and publication of his fast sermon.[886]

Such language, however, was much too mild and unduly exonerative for the “Author of the Worcester Charge.” His aroused spirit required that censure should be imposed. Morse had been guilty of a base injustice; it was right that this fact should frankly be published to the world. Accordingly, the _Massachusetts Mercury_ of August 10, 1798, contained a vigorous statement of the case of Masonry against Morse, from Bentley’s pen. The following will suffice to indicate the author’s spirit:

The notice taken of the American Geographer in the late
Charge,[887] was on account of his zeal, in his public character,
to give authority to a wicked and mischievous Book. That he did not
understand the Charge he has proved in his attempt to apply it,
and that he should not understand it, is easy to be conceived from
the Strictures already published upon his Compilations, and from
opinions of him, both at home and abroad. On a proper occasion,
these opinions may be collected and published.[888]

Still refusing to depart from the pathway of amiability and clerical courtesy, Bartlett returned to the discussion of the subject of Illuminism in its relation to American Freemasonry, in the _Mercury_ of September 7, 1798. In cumbrous sentences the appearance of Robison’s book in this country was reviewed; the best of motives were imputed to its author and his supporters in America; but stress, very _gentle_ stress, to be sure, was laid upon the question whether the Illuminati, in any form or other, had branches in this country. “If,” Bartlett urged, “there is any citizen in the United States who can prove this, it is a duty which he really owes to God and his country, to come forward, ‘as a faithful watchman,’ with his documents.” As for himself, he was fully persuaded that if the Masonic institution could be implicated fairly in the conspiracy, then the doors of every lodge ought to be flung wide open, and Masonry henceforth held in just derision and contempt.[889]

This seemed to open the way for such a polite and harmless handling of the subject as Morse coveted. In like spirit he replied to the foregoing.[890] He rejoiced in the candid utterances of his worthy friend. Bartlett’s acceptance of the existence of the Illuminati persuaded him to hope that opposition to Robison would now soon cease. Had the latter’s work not been opposed in the first place, he entertained no doubt that Freemasonry in the United States would not have been injured. While disclaiming all intention of pursuing a controversial course, he would, however, undertake an investigation to determine whether or not there were societies of the Illuminati in this country.[891]

A belated promise, to say the least, and one that found a certain belated fulfilment in Morse’s fast sermon of the following spring.[892] Before turning to consider the effect of that sermon on Masonic thought, one other Masonic disclaimer of 1798 requires attention.

On October 23, the Grand Lodge of Vermont drew up an address to the President somewhat similar to the one which earlier in the year their Massachusetts brethren had presented.[893] Beginning with the familiar observation that Masonic principles forbade the introduction of political subjects into the discussions of the order, but that the serious cast of national affairs was such as to justify the present action, the address proceeded to notice the “slanders” that were in circulation respecting the order and to profess the ardent attachment of Vermont Masons to the cause of the government. The idea that Masons were capable of faction was repudiated with energy. An individual Mason here and there might possibly sell his birthright for a mess of pottage, or betray his country for paltry pelf; but as a body the Masonic fraternity stood committed to support the government. _All_ should be risked in its maintenance and defence.[894]

The language of the address could hardly have been warmer. On the other hand, the President’s response was cold, or, if not that, at least puzzling.[895] Asserting first that he had ever esteemed the societies of Freemasons in this country as not only innocent of base designs but actually useful, he seemed to dispel all the comfort which the reading of that assurance was calculated to impart by adding the following:

The principle, not to introduce politics in your private
assemblies, and the other principle, to be willing subjects to
the government, would, if observed, preserve such societies from
suspicion. But it seems to be agreed, that the society of Masons
have discovered a science of government, or art of ruling society,
peculiar to themselves, and unknown to all the other legislators
and philosophers of the world; I mean not only the skill to know
each other by marks or signs that no other persons can divine,
but the wonderful power of enabling and compelling all men, and
I suppose all women, at all hours, to keep a secret. If this art
can be applied, to set aside the ordinary maxims of society, and
introduce politics and disobedience to government, and still
keep the secret, it must be obvious that such science and such
societies may be perverted to all the ill purposes which have been
suspected. The characters which compose the lodges in America are
such as forbid every apprehension from them, and they will best
know whether any dangers are possible in other countries as well as
in this.... I say cordially with you—let not the tongue of slander
say, that Masons in America are capable of faction. I am very
confident it can not be said by any one with truth of the Masons of
Vermont.[896]

Was the President ironical or frank? He had intimated that the Masons were _capable_ of corruption: did he, or did he not think they were guiltless of the charge of conspiracy that had recently been lodged against them? One could not be absolutely sure from what he had written. What the Masons of Vermont may have felt when the ambiguous response of the President was before them, we have no means of knowing; but there was one Mason in Massachusetts who read the response of the President to the address of the Vermont Masons, and who was displeased. In the view of William Bentley, the President had done anything but assist the cause of Masonry in the hour of its embarrassment. He has left us the record of his impressions in the following form:

The address to General Washington,[897] as brother, must have
the best effect, because he gives his own testimony, that he is
a stranger to any ill designs of our institution.[898] But the
replies of President Adams, such as he was indeed obliged to offer,
have only left us where he found us, if in so happy a condition.
His answers are candid, but he could know nothing. His answer to
Massachusetts Grand Lodge insinuates his hopes. To Maryland, he
seems to express even his fears.[899] To Vermont, he says, he
believes the institution has been useful But while he expressed a
confidence in the American lodges, he consents to hold our lodges
capable of corruption. His words are, “Masons will best know
whether any dangers are possible in other countries, as well as in
this.”[900]

We have seen that the most appreciable and positive of all the evidence that the champions of the charge of Illuminism brought against the Masons was that which Morse embodied in his fast sermon in the spring of 1799. For once the tiresome reiterations of the theorist and the reporter of other men’s suspicions were laid aside. For once a straight thrust was made at a definite point in the armor of American Masonry. The effect which Morse’s sermon produced on the minds of New England Masons naturally stimulates inquiry.

Contrary to what might very properly be supposed, the literature of contemporary New England Freemasonry fails to yield full and convincing evidence as to the precise character of this reaction. A few formal public statements were made on the part of representatives of the craft, or in one or two instances by men who were sufficiently close to the institution to be used on occasions when Masonry threw wide its doors of seclusion that the profane might draw near. Some of these must be noticed.

Far removed from the chief centers of the agitation, at Portland, Maine, Masonic Brother Amos Stoddard addressed the craft, on the occasion of the festival of St. John the Baptist, June 24, 1799.[901] Stoddard did not balk at the admission that the fraternity “have, unfortunately, tolerated the Illuminati.”[902] But there was this to be said by way of exculpation: the Illuminati were not legitimate Masons.[903] “To propagate their revolutionary poison, and to protract the period of detection” (_sic_), they attached themselves to Freemasonry and called themselves by its name. In this way the world had been deceived. But the main citadel of Masonry had not capitulated; only a section of the fraternity had been taken by treachery.[904] A temporary wound, undeniably, had been inflicted; but no lasting hurt would come to the craft.[905]

At Reading, Massachusetts, on the same occasion, Caleb Prentiss, a non-Mason, told the members and friends of Mt. Moriah Lodge that the lodges were under suspicion as they had never been before.[906] The eyes of the _world_ were now turned upon Masonry. The suspicion that nefarious conspiracies had been formed or countenanced within the lodges was well fixed in the public mind. Masons would need to walk with more than ordinary circumspection. They must sedulously keep themselves spotless from the imputation of such designs, that the craft be not blamed. By striving to show themselves to be lovers of God and mankind, friends of religion, friends of their country, and firm and study supporters of the latter’s civil constitution, government, and laws, they would be able to vindicate the principles, professions, and constitutions of true ancient Masonry.[907]

At Ashby, New Hampshire, on the same festival day, an assembly of Masons and their friends listened to a discourse which by way of concessions to the opponents of Masonry outstripped anything that went before or followed after.[908] The Reverend Seth Payson, that fatuous aspirant to literary fame who elected to be a tardy echo of the speculations of Robison, Barruel, and Morse,[909] informed his auditors that while Masonry in its essential principles and constitution had shown itself to be useful to society, unhappily its name, veil of secrecy, symbols, and associative principles had been seized by a body of men in Europe, in order to mask their hellish purposes of eradicating from the human mind “all belief of a God, of a governing providence, of the immortality of the soul, and a future state,—to extinguish every principle of natural and revealed religion and moral sentiments, and to demolish every government but its own.”[910] In all its horrid appendages, the French Revolution was the result of this conspiracy. This “vine of Sodom” was transplanted to the United States: witness the opposition which in this country developed against those “eminent benefactors to mankind in general,” Drs. Robison, Morse, _et al._[911] Without the faithful researches of Morse, in particular, a very much more serious infection of the Masonic body assuredly would have occurred.[912]

Such isolated and generally indefinite utterances, it may be urged, are scarcely to be trusted as offering an accurate reflection of the state of the Masonic mind. They do not, however, stand altogether alone. From various and perhaps more solid sources, the evidence is forthcoming that the year 1799 was a year of deep anxiety and concern on the part of the Masons of New England.

The diary of William Bentley supplies some evidence to this effect.[913] His disgust was great that the clergy continued to agitate concerning the pernicious principles and influence of Weishaupt, and that with equal pertinacity the press kept the affairs of that individual and his minions before the public.[914] The equally candid acknowledgments of other Masons are even more to the point. One spokesman for Rhode Island Masonry made public admission that the fraternity was suffering keenly from “a temporary odium.”[915] Another in Massachusetts uttered the complaint that the industrious zeal of the unprincipled defamer had involved the craft in most serious embarrassment.[916] Some were driven to take refuge in the consolation that the lodges of the Illuminati were bastard organizations, and therefore Freemasonry could not justly be anathematized on their account.[917]

When the skies had cleared, as we have seen they soon did, and Masons began to take stock of the experience through which their institution had passed, their admissions of what the agitation had cost the order were even more significant. One confessed that Masonry had started back affrighted at the hideous spectre of Illuminism, and that the joy that filled the lodges because they were no longer suspected as “hot-beds of sedition” and “nurseries of infidelity” was very great.[918] Another likewise rejoiced in spirit that the dark period of suspicion and calumny through which the order has been passing was now over, and that political agitation against the institution was at an end.[919] Another admitted that after the lapse of a half dozen years it was difficult to plant a new lodge in one of the most cultured of New England’s communities, on account of the influence exerted by the works of Robison and Barruel.[920] Still another confessed that the Illuminati controversy had cost the fraternity dearly in the matter of membership; a serious defection had resulted, representing many desertions.[921]

The various causes that contributed to bring about a collapse of the agitation over Illuminism have elsewhere received attention and for the most part require no special comment in this connection. One of these, however, was of such a nature that it has been reserved for brief exposition at this point.

The death of Washington, while confessedly an event of national significance, and, as such, shared as the common bereavement of all the citizens of the country, nevertheless assumed a very special importance in the eyes of Masons and exerted an immediate and weighty influence upon the fortunes of the order.

One who turns the pages of the black-bordered newspapers of the day, all sharing in the universal lamentation and doing their utmost to set before their readers the last detail regarding the closing hours in the great man’s life and the arrangement and disposition of affairs in connection with his obsequies, is likely to find himself amazed because the Masons found it possible to figure in the circumstances as conspicuously and largely as they did. The Masons were in evidence, in very conspicuous evidence, it must be said, in all that pertained to the funeral rites of the nation’s first chief. Not only was this true of the funeral ceremonies proper; in innumerable places where mourning assemblies gathered to pay respect to the memory of Washington, Masons claimed and were accorded the places of honor in the processions and concourses that marked these outpourings of popular sorrow.

It cannot be doubted that American Freemasons, while sincere in their expressions of sorrow on account of Washington’s death, none the less found a peculiar comfort of soul in being able _at such a time_ to point to the fallen hero as _their_ “brother.” At an hour when the tongue of scandal and the finger of suspicion were still active they esteemed it an opportunity not to be despised to be able to stand before the country and proudly say, “Washington was of us.”