Letters on Masonry to William Stone

This project is made possible by a grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services as administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Education through the Office of Commonwealth Libraries)

LETTERS ON MASONRY BY John Quincy Adams

We insert below a series of four letters, addressed to one of Editors of this paper four weeks ago, by the late President of the United States, upon the ex- citing subject of Masonry. Their publication has been thus delayed by the di- rections of the distinguished author himself. Apprehending, probably, that their earlier publication might be imputed to a desire to influence the pending Presidential election, he requested that they might be privately retained until the close of the contest. Although the votes of the Electoral Colleges have not been cast, yet the State elections are now over, and the ultimate result can in no way be affected by the perusal of these letters. They are written with the wonted ingenuity, power and spirit of the Ex-President, and will doubtless be read with great interest by the public. — N. Y. Com. Adv.

LETTER NO. I.

Quincy, 25th August, 1832. Wm. L. Stone Esq. New- York.

DeakSik. — In my last letter I observed, with the freedom 'and candor which I thought due to you as the best return I could make for the honour and obligation you had conferred upon me, by addressing to me your letters upon Masonry and An- ti-Masonry, that there were many things in the book which I did not see as you did. ■». Some further explanation is due from me upon the subject. The principal ob- jects of your book were two. First, to vindicate the character of an eminent and illustrious citizen of New York, the late Governor of the State De Witt Clinton, from the opprobrium cast upon him, of having been personally and deeply con- cerned in the murder of Morgan ; and, secondly to prove by a fair and impartial statement of the abuses to which the Ma- sonic Institutions have been perverted, that they ought to be voluntarily surren- dered and abolished.

These objects were just and laudable. They are in your volume faithfully pur- sued ; nor is there in the execution of your plan, any thing in the Letters unsuitable or redundant. You observe in the first Letter, that it it no part of your design to

write a vindication of free Masonry as such, — but to describe Free Masonry as you received, understood, and practised it yourself, and as it has been received, un- derstood and practised by hundreds of vir- tuous and intelligent men, with whom you have associated in the Lodge Room.

To this the first ten Letters are devoted, and they are in my estimation not less val- uable than those which succeed them. — But as Bishop Watson wrote an apology for the Bible, 1 trust you will not consider me as intending any disparagement to that part of your work, it J consider it in the light of an apology for Free Masonry, as received, understood, and practised by yourself and many others. In that light it is exceedingly well adapted to its puipose. It is the only rational plea for the institu- tion that I have seen, since this contro- versy began ; for all the other defences of the handmaid which have come to my knowledge have smaeked too much of the obligation to come to the aid of a distres- sed brother, and extricate him from his dif- ficulties right or wrong , to pass for any other than aggravations of the Morgan murder crimes.

You have taken all the degrees to, and including that of the Knight Templar.

The Oaths, Obligations and Penalties, as

H' ' 1

administered to, and understood by you, contained nothing incompatible with your duties to your country and your kind. Whatever there might be in them, appar- ently incongruous with the prior and par- amount duties of the citizen and Christian, was explained and given in charge in such a manner as to be made entirely subordi- nate to them. The obligations, as under- stood by you, are all auxiliaries toChriatian benevolence and patriotism, and so they are undoubtedly understood by multitudes of masons in all parts of the United States. That they are otherwise understood also by multitudes of the worthy brethren of the craft (worthy according to the masonic meaning of the word,) is apparent in every page of your book.

In.your third Letter, p. 23. you allude to an opinion which 1 once expressed to you in the following terms : — “You, sir, have assured me the obligation supposed to he administered in conferring the first degree, is quite enough, in your view, to establish the wicked character of the In- stitution.”

Whether I did make use of terms quite so strong in the freedom of unrestrained conversation, or whether your reference to it is by inference of your own, from words not quite so comprehensive, is not materi- al. The sentiment which I do recollect to have expressed, and which is rooted in my conviction was, “that the entered ap- prentice’s oath, obligation and annexed “penalty, was in itself mcioas — and as such “ought never be administered by man “to man.” That no explanation of it could take away its essentially immoral charac- ter— and that the Institution of Free Ma- sonry requiring absolutely the administra- tion of it to every candidate for admission, necessarily shared in its immorality.

In saying this, I disclaim all intentions of censure upon any individual who has ever laken this oath. I consider* it ac- cording to its own import — stripped of all warrant of authority from the great names of illustrious men who may have taken it.

My objections to it are these.

First: That it is an extra-judicial oath and as such contrary to the laws of the land.

Secondly : That it is a violation of the precept of Jesus Christ — Swear not at all.

Thirdly: That this oath pledges the candidate, in the name of God, that he will always hail, forever conceal, and never re- veal any of the secret arts, parts or points of the mysteries “of free masonry to any “person under the canopy of heaven, ex- “eept it shall be a true and lawful mason, “or within the body of a just and regular “lodge of such ; and not unto him or them “until after due trial, strict examination, “or by the lawful information of a brother, “I shall have found him or them as justly “and lawfully entitled to the same as I am „mysclf.”

The arts, parts, points arid mysteries of masonry, are afterwards in the oath tie- nominated the secrets of the craft. — These are all general and indefinite terms. The candidate, when he takes the oath, is kept in total ignorance of what these secrets cf the craft consist. He knows not the na- ture and extent of the oath he takes. He is sworn to keep secret, he knows not what. The assurance that it is not to in- terfere with any of his duties, is but a mockery, when the administration of the oath itself is a violation of law.

He swears to revejl the secrets of the craft to no person* under the canopy of Heaven ; except to a brother mason or a lodge. The single exception expressed is an exclusion of all others. There is no exception for the authority of law or for the confession enjoined upon the Catholic brethren by their religion. I use this il- lustration to show, that the intrinsic im- port of the oath, is incompatible with law, civil and religious.

Now what these secrets of the Craft are, to the keeping of which, the candidate, thus ignorant of their import, is sworn, is never defined. They are differently un- derstood, by different Masons. The oaths, obligations and penalties themselves have until very recently been understood, I be- lieve, universally, to form a part of these secrets. Those of the first three degrees were first revealed by the publication of Morgan’s book ; those of the subsequent degrees to that of the thrice illustrious or- der of the Cross, were divulged by the Convention of the seceding Masons at Le Roy on the 4th of July, 1828. Those in Morgan’s book I understand to be admit- ted on all hands to be correct. But with

regard to the obligations of the Red Cross Knights, and the Templars as disclosed by that Convention, you say that although you have received those degrees and as- sisted in conferring them, you know ot no such obligations in any degrees. Your impression is that they must have been devised vvestwardof Albany, and imposed upon candidates without the sanction ot any governing body. You do not question the correctness of the publication of these degrees by the Convention of seceding

Masons. You are authorized to state that when the forms of those obligations were received in the city, measures were taken by the Grand Encampment to ascertain whether any encampment under its juris- diction had in fact ever administered any such obligations, and if so, where, and by whom they had been imposed.

[t is earnestly to be hoped that the Grand Encampment will sincerely and se- riously pursue this inquiry, and make known the result of their researches to the world. In the mean time, observe the inferences to be drawn from this ex- treme diversity of the terms and import of the obligations as administered in difler- ent Lodges Chapters, and Encampments ; but all under the sanction of this tremen- duous Oath of the entered apprentice — all secured by this soul-shackling pledge, giv- en in advance, and in ignorance of what they are to be ; and all ri vetted by the pen- alty to which I shall next advert.

Fourth-ly ; . ....“All this, I promise and swear — binding “myself under no less penalty than that “of having my throat cut across from ear “to ear, my tongue torn out by its roots, “and my body buried in the rough sand cf “the sea at low water-mark, where the “tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four “hours.”

We have been told over and over again that this is understood by Masons to be merely an invocation — and the Committee of Investigation of the Legislature of Rhode Island, have gravely told the world that the explanation given by Masons to this penalty, is, “that I would rather have, or sooner have, my throat cut, than to re- veal,” &c. It is unfortunate that this ex- planation is in direct contradiction to the plain and unequivocal import of the words

of the Oath. The Oath incurs the penalty for its violation. The explanation prom- ises fidelity, though at the expense oflite. The Oath imprecates the death of a trai- tor, as a penalty for treachery. The ex- planation claims a crown of martyrdom tor constancy. If Benedict Arnold had been taken in the act of treason to his countiy, lie would have suffered no less a penalty than death, though not the barbarous and brutal death of the masonic obligation. When Joseph Warren suffered death on Bunker’s Hill, is there an explanatory ma- son who dare tell you that he suffered a penalty. Yet so it is, that the Masonic Oath, and its explanation, confouud all moral distinctions to the degree of con- sidering the death of a martyr and the death of a traitor as one and the same

thing.

This explanation of the penalty annex- ed to the entered apprentice’s Oath, it must be acknowledged, is not ingenuous

it is not even ingenious. It is a grand

hailing sign of distress ; or it is a Masonic Murder of the English Language.

I say this with the less hesitation, be- cause in your seventh letter containing your defence of the Masonic Obligations, you have disdained to take this preposter- ous explanation of the Rhode-Island Ma- sons. You know too well the import of words. You candidly avow that the Oaths and Obligations are out of season — out of reason ; and ought to be abolished. I will therefore forbear to press upon you the still grosser absurdity, of the pretend- ed Rhode-Island explanation, when ap- plied to the Master Mason’s and Royal Arch penalties. The Master Mason’s pen- alty is to have his body severed in two in the midst, and divided to the North and South, his bowels burnt to ashes in the centre, and the ashes scattered before the four winds of Heaven, that there might not the least track or trace of remembrance re- main among men or masons of so vile and perjured a wretch, as I should he. Ant this, according to the Rhode-Island ex- planation, is to be the consequence of hi- dying like Hiram Abiff, rather than betraj the Masonic secrets.

My fifth objection is to the horribh ideas, of which the penalty is composed Even in the barbarous ages of antiquity

Horner tells you, that when Achilles drag, ged the dead body of Hector round the walls of Troy, it was a dishonest deed— a eik e a medeto erg a— and 1 lato severely censures Homer for even introducing this incident into his poem.— A mangled body after death, was a fought disgusting even to Heathens. l(rom the very thoughts— and still more irom the lips of a Christian, it should for- ever be excluded, like indelicacy from the mouth of a female. The Constitutions of the United States, and of Massachusetts, prohibit the infliction of cruel or unusual punishments even by the authority of the law. But no butcher would mutilate the carcass of a bullock or a swine, as the Masonic candidate swears consent to the mutilation of his own, for the breach of an absurd and senseless secret. I cannot consent to your denomination of these penalties as idle or unmeaning words. They aie words of too much meaning — of hideous significancy.— The Masons are bound for their own honour to expunge them from their records forever. Would that they could be expunged from the .Language, dishonoured by their introduc- tion into its forms of speech.

1 remain, very respectfully,

Your friend,

J. Q. ADAMS.

letter NO. IV.

Quincy, August 29, 1832. Win. L. Slone , Esq. of New York.

Dear Sir,

Long, and l fear, tedious as you have found my last letter, I was compelled by a reluctance at making it longer, to com- press the observations in it upon the in- trinsic nature of the Masonic Oaths, Ob- ligations, and Penalties, within a compass insufficient to disclose my opinion, and the reasons upon which it is founded.

^ I had said to you that the Institution of Freemasonry was vicious, in its first step, lie initiation Oath, Obligation and Pen- dly of the entered apprentice. To sus- tain this opinion I assigned to you five rea- sons— because they were :

^ 1. Contrary to the Laws of the Land— Exira-judicially taken and administered.

2. In violation of the positive precepts if Jesus Christ. G

■ 3- A pledge to keep undefined Secrets, the Swearer being ignorant of their nature.

4. A pledge to the penalty of death for violation of the oath.

5. A pledge to a mode of death, cruel, unusual, unfit for utterance from human lips.

. It in the statement of these five objec- tions, upon principles of Law, .Religion, and Morals, there be any thing unsound,

I invite you to point it out. But if you contest either of my positions, I must en- treat y ou not to travel out of the record.

I might ask you, not to consider it a re- futation of either of these reasons, to say that you and all other honest and honora- ble Masons, have never so understood or practiced upon this Oath, Obligation and Penalty. The inquiry is not what your practice, or that of others has been, but what is the Obligation, its Oath, and its Penalty.

I must request of you to give me no explanation, of this Oath, Obligation and Penalty, directly contrary to their un- equivocal import. That you will not ex- plain black by saying that it means white, or even alledging that you so understand it. I particularly beg not to be told that honorable, intelligent and virtuous men, George Washington, and Joseph Warren, for example, understood that the penally of death for Treachery, meant the death of martyrdom for fidelity.

I would willingly be spared the neces- sity of replying to the averment that the patterns of honor and virtue whom I have just named, with a long catalogue of such men have taken this oath, and bound themselves to this Obligation, under this penalty. For I might deem it proper to inquire, whether the very act of binding such men, by such Oath, to such obliga- tion, under such penalty, is not among the sins of the Institution.

I must ask you to suppose that such an Institution had never existed — that it were now to be formed, and that you w’ere one out of ten or twenty, virtuous and intelli- gent men, about to form a charitable, and convivial secret Association. Suppose a Committee of such a meeting appointed to draw up a constitution for the Society should report the entered Apprentice’s Oath, Obli- gation and Penalty, as a form of initiation

7 for the admission of Members. I do not ask you whether you would vote for the acceptance of the Report, but what would you think of the Reporters?

1 consider this as the true and only Test, of the inherent and essential character of Masonry, and it was under this convic- tion, that I told you that the entered Ap- prentice’s Oath was sufficient to settle in my mind the immoral character of the In- stitution.

It is perhaps too much to ask of you, an explicit assent to those positions, because you may consider it an acknowledgement of error. But this is the first and funda- mental consideration from which I draw the conclusion that Masonry ought forever to be abolished. It is wrong— essentially wrong — a seed of evil, which can never produce any good. It may perish in the ground — It may never rise to bear fruit; but whatever fruit it does bear, must be rank poison— It can never prove a blessing, but by its barrenness.

My objections to this seminal ■principle of Masonry, apply in all their force to the single Obligation, the form of which is giv- en in the appendix to your Y olume, page 3, where it is stated to have been the only obligation, taken for all three degrees, so late as 1730, when only three degrees of Masonry were known. The Oath is in fewer words, but mors comprehensive, for the obligation is to keep uthe secrets or secrecy of Masons or Masonry." There is indeed a qualification in the promise not to write, point, mark, &c. which seems to keep the obligation within the verge of the Law. Fur the promise is to reveal nothing whereby the Secret might be un- lawfully obtained. The penally is also death not for constancy, but for treachery, “so that there be no resemblance of me among masons.”

This oath, obligation and penalty, the only one taken in all the degrees of Ma- sonry known but one century ago, is the prolific Parent of all the Oaths, Obliga- tions and penalties, since invented, and of the whole progeny of crimes descended from them. The natural and unavoidable tendency of such obligation, is the multi- plication of its kind. This tendency is among the most obvious causes which have led to the interdiction of all such

oaths and obligations by the civil, the ec- clesiastical, and the moral law. The ob- ligation is to keep undefined secrets. As they are undefined in the obligation itself, there is nothing in the Constitution of Ma- sonry to define them, or to secure uniform- ity either in the secrets or the obligations. Every lodge may so vary the secrets, obli- gations and penalties, and accordingly they have been so varied that scarcely any two adhering masons give the same ac- count of them. Almost the only defence of Freemasonry after the publication of the Books of David Bernard and Avery Al- lyn, consisted in efforts to discredit them, by denying that the Oaths, Obligations and Penalties were truly stated by them. A secret Institution in three degrees ; the secret of each degree being withheld from the members of the degrees inferior to it, is a perpetual temptation to the initiated to multiply the secrets and the degrees. Thus it is that the Lodges have grown intc Chapters — the Chapters into Encampments — the Encampments into Consistories; and so long ago as December, 1802, the Grand Inspectorof the United Slates of America issued at Charleston, South Carolina, t Circular announcing the existence and th< names of thirty three degrees of Masonry The secrets, to the keeping of which th< entered Apprentice is sworn, are indefinite In genuine Masonry, when revealed t him, he finds them frivolous. You ac knowledge that your first feeling upon re ceiving them was disappointment. S must it be with every reflecting intelligen man, nor is it conceivable that any sue entered Apprentice, on leaving the Lodg after his admission, should fail to have ol served with pain and mortification, tt contrast between the awful solemnity the oath which he has taken, and the e treme insignificance of the secret revet ed to him. It is to meet this unavoidab impression that the Institution is grade ted. The lure of curiosity is held oi and its attractive power is sinewed, by tl very disappointment which the appreriti has experienced. He takes the degrees Fellow Craft and Master Mason, and st finds disappointment — still finds hims bound by tremendous oachs, to keep i fling and frivolous secrets. The pract of the Institution is deceptive and fraur

lent. It holds out to him a promise whi it never performs. Its promise is Light- ita performance is darkness.

But it introduces him to intimate, con- fidential, and exclusive relations, with a select and limited circle of other men — rnd to the same confidential and exclusive elalions, with great multitudes of men, be- onging to every civilized nation through- >ut the globe. The Entered Apprentice’s 3ath, is merely an oath of secrecy — but he candidate who takes it has pledged umself, by his application for admission, o conform to all the ancient established isages and customs of the fraternity. — i.nd the charge of the master given upon he Bible, compass and square, presents dm with three precious jewels, a listen- ng ear — a silent tongue — and a faithful eart — all, of course, exclusively applica- le to the secrets revealed to him — and he s told that the listening ear teaches him a listen to the instructions of the Wor- hipful Master ; but more especially to the ries of a worthy, distressed brother ; — and iat the faithful heart teaches him to be lithful to the instructions of the Worship- rl Master at all times, but more especial- r to keep and conceal the secrets of Ma- >nry, and those of a brother, when given > him in charge as such, that they may :main as secure and inviolable in his he Entered Apprentice’s) breast, as in s (tlie brother’s) own. Two check words -e also presented to him — truth and union -the explanation of which concludes that e heart and longue of Free Masons, join ^ promoting each other's welfare, and re- icing in each other’s prosperity.

Thus the essential nature of the Enter- |l Apprentice’s oath, preceded by his .edge to conform to all the established :ages and customs of the fraternity, and Bowed by the charge of the Master, is cret and exclusive favor, assistance and lelity to the brotherhood and brothers of e Craft.

Now combine together the disappoint- t*nt which every intelligent accepted Jison must feel at the puerility of the se- its revealed to him, compared with the piling solemnity of the oath exacted m him for the purchase of his lamb skin ron, and the secret ties with which ho 9 linked himself with multitudes of other

8 i men, exclusively to favor, assist and be faithful to each other, and acknowledge that the temptation to make the secrets more important, and to turn them to better account to the craft, must be irresistible. Judge this system a priori, without refer- ence to any of the consequences which it has produced, and say if human ingenuity could invent an engine better suited to conspiracy ot any kind. The Entered Ap- prentice returns from the Lodge, with his curiosity stimulated, his imagination be- wildered, and his reason disappointed.—— The mixture of Religion & Morality, blen- ded with falsehood and imposture, which pervade all the ceremonies of initiation, is like arsenic mingled up with balm.

“Most dangerous “Is that Temptation which doth lead us on “To Sin, in loving Virtue.”

If the candidate has been educated to a sincere and heartfelt reverence for religion and the Bible, and if he exercises his rea- son, he knows that all the tales of Jachin dc Boaz, of Solomon’s Temple, of Hiram Abiff and Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum, are im- postures ; poisons poured into the perennial fountain of truth — traditions exactly resem- bling those reprobated by Jesus Christ, as making the Word of God of none effect. If, as in this age but too often happens, he enters the lodge a sceptic, the use of the Bible there, if it have any effect upon him, will turn him out a confirmed infidel. — I’he sincere and rational believer in the Gospel, can find no confirmation of his faith m the unwarrantable uses made of the Holy Scriptures to shed an unction of their sanctity around the fabulous fabric of Freemasonry ; while the reprobate mis- creant will be taught the uses to which fraud and secresy may turn the lessons of piety and virtue, inculcated in the subli- mest effusions of divine inspiration. In those scriptures we are told, that when “the children of Israel did secretly those things that were not right against the Lord their God,” they became idolators, and were carried into captivity. Their cities then were soon filled with a mon- grel race of Babylonians and Assyrians, who perverted the Word of God with the impostures of Paganism ; burnt their chil- dren in fire, to the Gods of Sepharvaim, and ' feared the Lord, and served their

graven images”-— an emblem of Free Ma- sonry, far more illustrative of its character, than the Tragedy of Hiram Abiff.

The Entered Apprentice’s Oath, is, there- fore, in its own nature, a seminal principle of conspiracy — and the objection applies to the only oath originally taken in all the degrees of Free Masonry at its first insti- tution. The ostensible primitive purposes of Free Masonry, were all comprised in good-fellowship. But to good-fellowship, whether of labor or refreshment, neither secresy, nor oath, nor penalties, are neces- sary or congenial. In the original insti- tution of Freemasonry, there was then an ostensible and a secret object, and by the graduation of the order, the means were supplied of converting it to any evil purpose of associated power, screened from the danger of detection. Hence all the bitter fruits which the institution has borne in Germany, in France, in Mexico, and lastly, in this our beloved country. Nor could they have failed to be produced in Great Britain, but that by sharp and bi- ting statutes, they have been confined with- in the limit of the ostensible object of the brotherhood — good fellowship.

I am, with much respect, dear sir, your friend and servant.

J. Q. ADAMS.

LETTER III.

Quincy, September 6, 1832. Wtn. L. Stone, Esq. New York.

Dear Sir,

In my two preceding letters you have seen my objections, drawn from the foun- tains of Law, Religion and Morals, against the first step of freemasonry, the Oath, with its obligation and penalty, ad- ministered to the Entered Apprentice, at his initiation. You will certainly under- stand, that in this denunciation of the thing, it is not my intention to include a charge against any individual who has ever taken the oath — as on the other hand I exclude all palliation or justification of it upon the mere authority of the great names of men by whom it has been taken.

It is a pledge of faith from man to man, solemnized by an appeal to God and for- tified by the express assent of the swearer, to undergo the penalty of death and muti-

lation, at, or after death, for its violation. Such it is in itself, and no explanation can, without doing violence to the natural con- nection between thought and language, take away this its essential and unequivo- cal import.

The objections are : —

1. To the oath.

2. To the promise.

3. To the penalty.

1. To the Oath — as a double violation of the law of the Land, and of the law of God. Upon this, there appears by your seventh letter, to be very little, if any, dif- ference of opinion between you and me. The principles assumed and admitted in the introduction to your seventh letter, are unquestionably correct with reference to law, to religion, and morals — and it is equally clear that they are all disregarded in the administration of the masonic oaths. It is a vice of the institution, which no ex- ample can justify, and which no sophistry can extenuate. — Your acknowledgment is magnanimous — your argument is un- answerable.

But if the administration of the oath is of itself a violation of the laws of both of God & man, as well by him who administers as by him who takes it, is it not a further mockery of both, for the master, in the very act of transgressing the laws, and of suborn- ing the candidate to transgress them with him, to say to him “this obligation is not in- tended to interfere with your duty to your- self, your neighbor, your country, or your God.” Is there not falsehood and hypocrisy superadded to the breach of law, & profana- tion of the name of God, in the injunction & explanation itselt ? He calls upon the candidate to perform an unlawful act — and he tells him that it is not to interfere with his religion or politics— or, with deep- er duplicity, that is to interfere with none of his civil, moral, or religious duties. — - This self-contradiction of word and deed, is the very essence of all sanguinary reli- gious fanaticism. It is very the vital spark of the spirit which armed with daggers the hands of Ravaillac and Balthasar Girard. Under the excruciating pangs of the tor- ture, Ravaillac to his last gasp protested that he thought he was serving God by the assassination of a King who was about to declare war against the Pope — and he signed his name to one of the interrogato- ries at his trial — Francis Ravaillac —

Que toujours dans mon cceur 1 Jesus soit le vainqueur.

“ In my heart, forever, may “ Jesus hold conquering sway.”

^ If the murder of Henry the Fourth of ^France had been concerted in a Masonic 1Lodgo Room, and the Master had admin- istered to the perpetrator, as a part of his :<aath, the obligation to commit that deed, >he might with just as much reason and -consistency, have assured him that this loath would not interfere with his religion 'or politics, or with his duty to himself, his cneighbor, his country, or his God, as the -Master of a Masonic Lodge can now give ^such an assurance to a candidate for ad- Imission, before administering to him the ‘bath of an Entered Apprentice. f‘

2. To the Promise.

< The promise is to keep the secrets of ^masonry ; and never to reveal them to any ’human being, not already initiated. I shave already objected that this promise is ^indefinite. The promiser knows not the inature of the secrets which he is sworn to ikeep.— Nor are they ever explained to ihim. In your 7th letter, page 71, you lhave explicitly stated your understanding rof what the secrets were, and that you have ^always found your intelligent brethren (ready to concur in that opinion. Your de- 5 finition of them is so clear and satisfactory, Ithat if it were in its very terms so explain- ed by the Master, before administering the ■oath, this objection would be removed.

“The essential secrets of masonry (you say) consist in nothing more than the signs, grips, pass-words, and tokens essen- itial to the preservation of the Society,

. from the inroads of imposters, together I with certain symbolical emblems, the tech- tnical terms appertaining to which served las a sort of universal language, by which 1 the members of the fraternity could distin- cguisli each other, in all places and coun- l tries where lodges were instituted, and (conducted like those of the United States.”

In nothing more. But no such expla- nation is ever given to the candidate for f admission, when the oath is administered : to him, or ever afterwards — and you very U candidly admit that this is not the under- standing entertained of the Secrets of Ma- sonry, by ‘foolish brethren.’ Now herein f consists my objection to the promise. It

10

is to keep secret, he knows not what — he never knows — and this indefiniteness is essential to preserve the graduation of the Order. It is essential to keep alive the curiosity of the candidate, who at each de- gree that he attains, is always comforted in his disappointment by the assurance that there is in the next degree, a secret worth knowing.

If it be said that the exaction of a pro- mise to keep a secret must necessarily pre- cede the communication of the secret it- self, and that therefore no promissor can know in advance what it is that he pledges himself to keep secret, I reply that my objection is to the indefiniteness, not only of the secret itself, but of the promise. — Jurors in courts of law are sworn to keep secret the councils of their fellows, and their own. The Juror to be sure know« not what the councils of his fellows will be, when he swears to keep them secret, but he knows that they cannot extend be- yond the line of their duty to decide the matter committed to them — and there is nothing indefinite in the obligation from the moment when it becomes binding up- on him. The masonic swearer, is ignorant of the extent both of his oath and of his his promise — and after his admission, he still is never informed what are the se- crets which he has been swornto keep.

In your enumeration of the essential secrets of the Order, you do not include the Oaths themselves, as administered to the candidates for admission, These, therefore, are no secrets which any mason is bound to keep. But has this been the understanding of intelligent masons here- tofore ? Why then have the forms of the oaths never been made public in the ma- sonic books, published by authority, or with- out objectionfrom the order? Why have they become|so different in different places? Why in all the trials which have arisen from the murder of Morgan, and in which evidence of the forms of those oaths, obli- gations and penalties was essential to the issue, have not authenticated copies of them been produced in court by the ma- sonic witnesses themselves? In Massa- chusetts, Vermont, in Rhode Island, there have been numerous defences of masonry, by individual masons and masonic lodges.

Very indignantly denying, that they ever took or administered the obligations with the words ‘Murder and Treason not ex- cepted,’ and generally denying that they were under any obligations contrary to the laws of God, or of their country : but anxious as they have all been to fix the charge of slander upon Avery Allyn, and David Bernard and to make the world be- lieve that the forms of masonic oaths, obli- gations and penalties, disclosed in their books, were fabrications of their own, never used by any masonic body — still in no single instance have they ever produced or certified to the oaths, obligations and penalties, as used or administered by them- selves, until the investigation instituted last winter, by the Legislature of Rhode Island, and conducted in a spirit so friend- ly to masonry, and so adverse to antima- sonry, that it could scarcely have been more so, had every member of the inves- tigating committee but one, been himself an adhering mason. In that investigation, the committee, like yourself, considered the secrets of masonry to consist of the signs, grips, pass-words and emblematical fignres of speech — and no more — and with regard to these, they indulged the brother- hood, by not inquiring into them, by in- terrogation of adhering masons — giving notice, that they should take all these pro- found mysteries, to have been correctly set forth in the books of Allyn and Ber- nard, unless positive testimony to the contrary should be voluntarily offered by adhering masons.

But the committee did require testi- mony from the adhering masons, of the oaths, obligations and penalties, as taken in the lodges, chapters and encampments in Rhode Island, and it was given. The appendix to the report of the committee contains this evidence, and authenticates upon full, adhering masonic authority, the oaths, obligations, and penalties, as taken and administered in Rhode Island, of eleven degrees, from the entered appren- tice to the royal master.

It is therefore to the indefiniteness of the promise in this authenticated obliga- tion of the entered apprentice, that I take my first objection — and this indefiniteness is not only intrinsic in the terms of the ob- ligation itself, bnt is aggravated by the

li

previous pledge of the candidate to eon< form to the established usages and customs of the order, and by the charge given b) the master who administers the oath which charge enjoins it upon the candidate as a duty to obey the instructions of the master of the lodge, and to keep the secret: of a brother mason, committed to him a: such. The obligation includes also the pledge to keep secret the transactions o the lodge — without exception.

There are thus, according to the under standing of the Rhode Island Masons, am to yours, three distinct classes of secrets to which every accepted mason was bourn — first to the secrets of masonry, consist ing only of the signals of communication tokens of mutual recognition between tin members of the fraternity. Secondly, thi secrets of brother masons communicate! as such — and thirdly, the transactions ii the lodge. And of these, you and the; consider the first class only as essential ti the order. But what is the principle of thi distinction ? None such is found in thi oaths themselves, nor in any of the mason! Books, nor in the charge given by the mas ter to the candidate for admission. Doe the promise of secresy given by the entei ed Apprentice extend to the transaction of the lodge ? It does not in the terms c the oath. It does not by the practice c the Rhode Island lodges ; for they enjoi this portion of the secrets by their by-law upon the penalty of expulsion , but thos same by-laws contains no provision what ever for the violation of the essential se crets. In all the oaths and obligatior subsequent to the degree of the entered aj prentice, the promise includes the secre of a brother mason, communicated as sue! but not the transactions of the lodge, chaj ter or encampment. These are deerne binding only by virtue of the other promis of the candidates, that he will conform 1 the customs and regulations of the fratern ty. But this distinction itself proves til in masonic contemplation, the obligation keep secret the transactions of the lodg is not the obligation, with oath and pena ly, to keep the essential secrets of tl craft. For disclosing the transactions t the lodge, the penalty is expulsion. B the by-laws contain no such penalty f disclosing the secrets of the craft. Wh

1

s this but a recognition that the penalty or divulging the secrets of the craft, is afferent from the penalty for revealing I he transactions of the lodge; — that is a rime of much higher order, sanctioned by lie oath with its penalty, and for which it Irould be alike inconsistent and absurd to jrovide by a by-law or regulation of the jklge.

f My first objection to the promise of the Entered apprentice’s obligation, is its in- definiteness — and this objection extends to ,£11 the obligations of the subsequent de- crees, and to the institution itself, which thereby rendered a ready engine of con- spiracy for any evil purpose. f! A second objection to the promise, is its Universality. It is to keep the secrets of 1 he craft, and never to reveal them to any \erson under the Canopy of Heaven. The fingle exception has no other effect than ^o exclude all other exceptions. It is con- joined to initiated brothers and regular 'edges, to whom the entered apprentice 'an of course reveal nothing, they being Already in possession ofthe secrets which he Promises to keep. The promise therefore, never to reveal the secrets of masonry !<o any person under the Canopy of Heaven.

1 1 shall pursue this subject in a another

’fetter. J. Q. ADAMS.

!J

LETTER IV.

Quincy, Sept. 1832. Wm. L. S tone. Esq. New York.

Dear Sir —

1 The second objection to the promise !f the Entered Apprentice’s obligation, is 1 ts universality. The candidate swears ■'hat he will never reveal any of the unde- i ned “arts, parts or points ofthe mysteries f Free Masonry, to any person under the ,'anopy of Heaven. This promise, like i he administration of the oath, is, in its jerms, contrary to the law of the land, .‘'’he laws of this and every civilized coun- ty, make it the duty of every citizen to testify the whole truth of facts, deemed by legislative bodies or judicial tribunals, J'iaterial to the issue of the investigation efore them. It is also the duty of a good llitizen to denounce and reveal to the au- lorities established to execute the laws ■gainst criminals, any secret crimes of fehich he has in any manner acquired the

O

knowledge. Now there is nothing in the arts, parts or points of the mysteries of Free Masonry, which in the trial of a judicial cause, or in an investigation of a Legisla- tive Assembly, may not be justly deemed material to the issue before the court or the legislature. Of its materiality, the judges, or the legislators, have the exclu- sive right to decide. No witness, called before a court of justice, or an authorized committee of a legislature, can refuse to answer any question put to him by the court or the committee, on the ground that he deems it immaterial to the trial before them. The principle becomes more gla- ringly obvious, when applied to the pro- mise never to reveal the secrets ofa broth- er mason, communicated as such, contain- ed in the Master Mason’s oath. — But the principle is identically the same. The Entered Apprentice promises never to re- veal to any person under the canopy of Heaven, that which the laws of his coun- try may, the next day after he makes the promise, make it his duty to reveal to any court of justice before which he may be summoned to appear, or to any committee of the legislature of the state in which he resides, or the Union. The promise is therefore unlawful, by its universality.

You will remember that I am maintain- ing the position that the obligation, under oath and penalty, administered to and ta- ken by the Entered Apprentice, is in itself essentially vicious. I now state the pro- mise in the words universally admitted to be used in that ceremony. Do you deny that they contain an unlawful promise? Yes, say you, because the candidate is told by the master who administers the oath, that “he is expressly to understand, that “nothing therein contained is to interfere “with his political or religious principles; “with his duty to God, or the laws of his “country.” And you, and all honest and worthy Masons, take and administer the oath with this understanding. Well then — the promise is in its terms contrary to the law of the land, but you take and ad- minister it with tacit reservation, furnish- ed to you not by the action of your own understanding, but by the previous notifi- cation of the master who administers the oath to you. So, and so only you say, the terms of the promise are to be construed.

1 r>

1 o

Bnt in the first place, this is not a ques- tion of construction, but a question of men- tal reservation. The words are plain and unequivocal; but you pronounce them with a reservation, that the promise shall bind you to nothing contrary to law. Now what possible reason or justification can there be for exacting a promise under oath, the real meaning of which is totally different from that of the terms in which it is couched ? You swear a man to one thing and you tell him it means another. But, secondly, how far does your excep- tion extend ? You say the promise ex- tends only to the essential secrets of Ma- sonry, and to the lawful transactions in the lodges, and to the secrets of Masons not criminal — the former of which you con- sider of not the least consequence to the world, but essential for the preservation of the society. The secrecy of transactions in the lodges you believe to be merely conventional ; and the promise of keeping the secrets of a brother Mason, as can- celled, when the secret confided to you by him is of a crime committed by himself.

Now all these exceptions resolve them- selves into the tacit reservation, author- ized by the declaration of the Master, before administering the oath, that it con- tains nothing contrary to the law. If the oath is taken with this reservation, it ap- plies equally to the promise to keep the essential secrets of the order and to all the others. And, therefore, a Freema- son, summoned before the committee of a Legislature, or a Court of Justice, is bound not less to disclose the grips, signs, due guards, and tokens, than he is to di- vulge the crimes of a brother Mason, known to him.

The simple question I take be this : I suppose a Freemason to be summoned be- fore a legislative committee or assembly, or judicial tribunal, to testify. Is he or is he not bound to answer any interrogatory put to him by their authority, and which they require of him to answer, respecting the essential secrets of the crrft l If he is, how can these secrets be kept, and ot what avail are all the oaths, administered to Masonic candidates, whether with or without penalty? If he is not, then the obligation of the Masonic oath supersedes the obligation ol the law of the land.

And if the Masonic oath of secrecy is paj amount to the law of the land, with regar to the mysteries of the craft, where is th principle which restores the supremac of the law, to require the disclosure t Masonic crimes ? The Masonic oath mak* no discrimination between the secrets- the promise is to keep them all. I he D claration of the Master that there is n thing unlawful in the oath, makes no d crimination — it applies to all or it appli to none.

With this view of the subject, you w perceive that I deem it altogether imm terial to the argument, whether the vvoi ‘murder and treason not excepted,’ are are not included in the Royal Arch IV. son’s promise of secrecy — whether promises to espouse the cause of a brotl Mason, right or wrong, or not — and whe er the words, ‘and they left to my o’ election,’ are or are not an innovation the Master Mason’s oath. But when y ask me, as an act of ‘justice, to belie that should a brother Mason tell you a; secret that he had robbed a store, } would very speedily make the matter pi lie in the police office,’ I must, while vi cheerfully and sincerely believing y observe, that it would be at the expci of the very explicit import of the Mas Mason’s oath. By that oath, the Mas Mason promises to keep the secrets of brother Master Mason, as secure and violable as if they were in his own bre ‘murder and treason excepted.’ That excepting two specific enumerated crin What, then, is the meaning of this exc tion? — and why are they excepted ? naming of them, emphatically leaves other crimes, included in the promise excluded from the exception. 1 he ter Mason’s promise does therefore, by plain import of its terms, pledge hire keep secret the knowledge of any ei committed by a brother Master Me and communicated to him as a Mas secret; other than the two specifier name ; and if you should be in the ui tunate condition of having such a sr communicated to you, and should notice of it at the Police office, you w discharge your duty to your country, by considering your Masonic promi. null and void. For here is the dilet

3 1 the Masonic promises are all made with ohe tacit reservation, that nothing contrary ia law is understood to be included in |h^em, then the exception of Murder and r reason in the Master Mason’s oath is not ■inly superfluous, but deceptive ; since its ■7<mits to two specific crimes, the excep- 'ron already referred to, of all crimes what ip ever 5 ar*d if the Masonic promises are J .ade without the reserved exception of 'n ’I unlawful things, then the exception of Sgfurder and Treason, from the secrets ,'llhich the Master Mason pledges himself ir keep, leaves all other crimes as distinctly ^ader the shelter of the promise, as if ipey had been included in it expressly by t tme.

w 3. To the Penalty.

’h l^eath by Torture and Mutilation, if] have in a former letter exposed the ijillacy I must say, the disingenuous fal- ■0cy, of the attempt to defend this part of lire Masonic Obligation in the late Rhode yand legislative investigation. In the gle of ‘January and May,’ when the doting, jind and abused husband, by the miracu- 'ys doing of the King of the Fairies, re- vived instantaneous restoration of sight,

'o witness his own dishonor ; the Queen ■ the dairies, with equal promptitude, ’e?£es^s the guilty wife, an explana- : on. The Masonic brotherhood of Rhode and, are as ready to take a suggestion I ltn the Queen of Fairies, as the youthful ^d studious May. The Committee of 1 Rhode Island Legislature was compos- of men too intelligent to be duped like fj wittol January, yet were they conten- t: *° b® to^> and to believe, that the pen- uy of death, for revealing a secret, was J rintically#one & the same thing as the he* 'fc martyrdom of death rather than to re- yl a secret. All Language is a system i yogic. All [-Language is a system of yrals. All figurat.ve Language is Trans- ■>|On. The words may say one thing and '.end another — but translation must not )e found moral distinctions, and Irony and indications are the only figures of speech n ch are permitted’in human intercourse ;t‘wash an Ethiop white.” j;four own exposition of this penalty is r® candid, and more plausible. You ysider the words in which the penalty impressed as unmeaning— because the

candidate has been told that the oblige tion contains nothing contrary to law ; and because the society neither possesses nor exercises the power to authorize the exe- cution of the penalty. This, of course, considers the penalty as null and void.

And so one would think it must be con- sidered by every fair-minded and honora- ble man. And why, then, do fair-minded and honorable men adhere to this penalty?

Is it worthy of fair-minded and honorable men to usg words full of sound snd fury? signifying nothing— -to use them as the sanction to a promise? — to use them with an appeal to the everlasting God ? Are

the words so charming in themselves is

the thought conveyed by them to the mind so irresistibly fascinating that even now twelve hundred fair-minded and honorable men of Massachusetts declare in the face their country and of mankind that they will not renounce the use of them? O, say not what lair-minded and honorable will not do !— Twelve hundred men of Massachusetts, men of fair and honorable minds, even now, after all the arts, parts and points of the mysteries of Freema- sonry have been revealed and published to the world, nay, after the very check word transmitted to them for their protection against the intrusion of Book Masons upon their mysteries, had been divulged with all the rest— after all this, twelve hundred Masons of Massachusetts have declared that they will not renounce or abandon the mysteries of Freemasonry ; — that they will still continue to hold their meetings, to Tyle their Lodges, to brandish their drawn swords for the exclusion of Cowans and Eeavesdroppers, and to swear the knave or simpleton who will henceforth submit to take the Oath, never to reveal, never to write, print, cut, carve, paint, stain, or engrave, secrets known to every one who will take the trouble to read — secrets in their own estimation, insignificant and puerile — secrets, in the estimation of great multitudes|of their fellow citizens, disgust- ing and blasphemous; — that they will continue to swear the candidate to this Oath of secrecy, under no less a penalty than that of having his throat cut across from ear to ear, his tongue torn out by the roots, and his body buried in the rough sand of the sea, at low water mark, where

15

the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty- four hours. But that they will take care to explain to him, that this means he will rather die than reveal to any person under the canopy of heaven these seerets known to all the world ; that his Oath is not to interfere with his religion or politics, nor with any of his duties to his neighbour, his country, or his God. For thus speaks the mystic Muse of Masonry : —

And many a Holy text, around she strews To teach Masonic Moralists to die.

Have I proved the entered Apprentice’s Oath is a breach of Law, human & divine 1 That its promise is undefined, unlawful, and nugatory ? That its penalty is barba- rous, inhuman — murderous in its terms, and in its least obnoxious sense null and void 1 If so— my task is done. The first step in Freemasonry is a false step. The entered Apprentice’s Obligation is a crime —and like all vicious usages should be abolished. JOHN Q,» ADAMS.

References

Letters on masonry addressed to William L. Stone, esq., of New York / by John Quincy Adams, late president of the United States : Adams, John Quincy, 1767-1848 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive