xi L 4
"3 #55» _

§¢§_.*°;*:g%..»%
fig,

nmsonxc omrxs Nmmmm M017-{ALLY NOR. LEGALLY BINDING.

ADDRESS,  

DELIVERED

A AT WEYMOUTH, soum PARISH, JUNE 21,
‘ I AT é»
WORCESTER, JULY 5, 4 A
@911‘ THE “£'II*"I'Y-*lF‘0I.Tl‘\‘.A.A'I‘.II .A.NNIV11‘.RS.A.B.Y OF ‘AMERICAN INJ35EPENDENUE}
AND

AT READING, JULY 12, 1330.

A A  BY MOSES THACHER,

mam or win: CHURCH Mr Ncmum WRENTHAM, Mass.

BOSTON:

rvzanxsx-mnmr rxmncn: 8n WILLI.A.MSV * 5
N0. 9, Carnhill. -

ml

Weymouth, June 21,1830. '

Rev. AND DEAR Sm, fl ,
In behalfofthe inhabitants of the South Parish ofWeymouth, we ten-
der you our thanks, for your very able and pertinent discourse, on Specula-
tive Free Masonry, this day clelilvered, and request he copy for the press.
, E E WILLIAM TYLER, ]
APPLETON HOWE,
lii'i~NOAH TERREY, Committee.
HARVEY REED,
VIN SON TIRRELL.

Ea

REV. Moses T1-IACHER.

Woazcaster, July 5, 1830.

Damn Sm, A .
The undersigned, a. committee appointed pursuant to a resolve this

day adopted, by a meeting of citizens from different parts of the County of ,

Worcester, holden at Worthiin=g;ton’s Hotel, in this town, respectfully re—
quest, for publication, a. copy of your very interesting, able and patriotic
address, this day delivered.
Accept, dear sir, assurance of‘ our high respect and esteem.
ANSLOW PETERS,
CALEB BURBANK, Committee.
MARTIN WILDER. E’

Rev. Moses TI-1&0!-ITER.

Reading, July 12, 1830.
DEAR Sm, E  ., -

We, the unclersi,gned., tender you the thanks of the Anti-Masonic
Committee ofthis town,‘ for your able and eppropriatte discourse, this day
delivered, and in theirlneme, request the favor of 3, copy for the press.

With mush’/respect ,a~.ncl esteem, your obliged friends,

JONAS PARKER, Delegation
AMBROSE KINGMAN, from said
Committee.

AMOS EVANS.
Rev. Moses TEACHER. \

 

F1-ELL0‘/V Cxcvxznns,

Tm: science of Moral andiPolitica1 Pl1ilnsophy,iaot°‘ %

inealculable importance to mankind. To learn our duty to
God, to our country, to ourselves, and; to our connexione

iandireliaitixtes in;lif'e,,is; one of thevfirsti thlHg5',:WhlCh7 should-

be; urged upon the understanding and coinséience off every

rational’ and moral being. Although theories, in<thiexaZ>sit7~ac.t,,

are useless, and; no system, either ofimorality, or of religion,

can beof any avail, unless it is reducedt to practice ;‘. yet,

no person can be reasonably expected to peaformtt his duty,
unless he undevwtandeit. Ignorance’ is neither, the mother
of devotion, nor1til1e+ mother of benevolent exertion. Al-

though itieaniold maxim, that“ ignorance of thelaw ext»
ouses» no man 3” still We muzstet taken it for granted, that every
man has: it in his powered to: know whats l']M2<Z£Zw»’l:se, or, he
would not been subject» of either praise, or blame, 1~e;ward%ori

punishment. “ i

I:advert.,, therefore, to. the science of Mor.al~and,Po1itiea1
Philosophy, because it involves those firstprinoiplesaof civil
and religiousright, without a, knowledge of which, We can
be: neither useful citizens, nor, devoted, Chiristivains.

\

4-

’ Deeply involved in this science, is the subjecteof OATHS
and PROMISES. The question, “ Why aml obliged to keep
my word ?” is one of the first which arises in a correct sys-
tem of p ethics; and the question, .“ When is an oath both

morally and legally binding?” is one of no less importance »'

in Political Philosophy. To set aside the sanctity of a law»-
ful oath, is to subvert the foundation of civil right, destroy
confidence between man and man, and to place the means
of retributive justice entirely out of the reach of civilcorn-—
xnunity. Let our citizens once lose a sense of moral obli-
gation .; let them cast off the fear of God, and become cal-
lous to the imposing influence of a solemn appeal to the
Searcher of hearts, and the certainty of a future retribution ;
and the arm of the law is paralized at once----the strength of
the civil power has fled,‘ like that of Samson, when shorn of
his looks, and the voice of authority is no better .than
“ sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” ‘

It can be neither out of place nor out of season,’ there-
fore, on this occasion, to discuss the subject of Oafrrtsg and
endeavor, ifpossible, to make it bear upon the present state
of civil and religious community. In order to set the sub-
ject in a clear and practical light, it is only necessary to lay

down certain first principles of "moral obligation, and to ap»

ply those principlesto the question at issue.  Here then,
let it be observed, ' 2 l 7

That nooath or promise can be morally. binding, which
contravenes any duty which we owe to. God. Our duty to
God is antecedent, in the order of nature, to every thing
else. It is contrary to the nature of things, therefore, for
any oath or promise to be morally binding, which runs coun-

_ ter to any thing which Godhas either required or tforbid-t
den. If, for exarnple,I should make oath thatlwoulcl

never again open my Bible, or appear in the house i of God,
in the exercise of public worship; it is evident that itsuph

an oath or promise could not be of anybinding force what-»

ever. For, it is impossible lfor anyone tobind“ ltimself,

5

either by oath or otherwise, to, neglect any knownlduty, or
to disobey any command of God. is The edict of Nebuchad-—

nezzar, that whoever would not fall down and worship the
golden image, which he had set up in the plain, of Dura,

should be cast the same hour-----into a burning fiery furnace,
could have no binding force whatever, either upon himself,
or upon any of his subjects. For, such decree was in di-

rect opposition to their allegiance and duty to the Most

High God. So of the decree and proclamation of Darius,
that no one should prefer.‘ any request or petition to any
god or man, for the space of thirty days, except to the king.
Such a law as this, was of no moral force whatever ;' be-

, cause every moral being in his kingdom was under prior

and indissoluble obligation to —pray to God, day by day.
The same would have been true, had Darius imposed a the
most solemn oath upon all his courtiers, and upon every
subject in his realm. There Was no law which he could
enact, and no oath or promise which he could impose, that
everwould or could absolve even the meanest subject from
his obligation to God. It is next to self-—-evident, therefore,
that no man can impose an obligation either upon himself or
upon others, which contravenes even the smallest duty which
we owe to our Creator.

It is equally obvious, that‘ no oath’ or promise can be
morally binding to do that, which in itself is unlawful. Ev-l

ery thing which is .in itself unlawful, must necessarily con-

travene our duty to God. There are ten thousand things,

however, in themselves sinful, which are not specified by

any particular positive or moral precept. These things are"
so evident, that even natureitself teaches their moral turpi-,

tude. To such things, therefore, the rule which I have al-
ready considered, is in every respect pertinent and’ applica-
ble. In respect to such acts of moral tlaberration,thei _“ law
of -Godii-s written in the heart 5” or impressed ‘,upon the
conscience ,5 so that, their t commission evidently. it supposes
direct disobedience to_ our Creator. If,“~ irllfQIl:-,.*,.8XaI1]pl6, I

6

should swear, under the imprecati-on of the most severe and
awful penalty, that I will set fire to my nreighborisll buildings,
or poison his cattle, or assassinate him at midnight,i—---it; is
self-evident, that I should not only be criminal inytaking the
oath, but unspeakablyl more criminral  I kept it. Of this
nature was the oath of Saul,. when he “to abjiureid t-he people
saying, Cursed be the man titan ieateth. any food t/n°s..day..”
Such an oath as this, Saul had neither a legal i nor a moral
right to make. He had no: right, either moral, or delegated
by his regal. authority, to deprive the people of that food,
which was ne,cess.ary to :thei~1' health and comfort. When,
therezforesthej discovered his pu,rp~oset to slajr Jonathan, for
“ tastinga little honey,” in addition to the sinof an: unlaw-
ful earth, he was guilty of a malignant and murrderous dispo-
sition. On this groundi, the people rescued Jonathan, and
would not suifer the king to put his un-righteous arid cruel
oath in executilon. Of a simila-1‘ nature! was the oath of
Herod, when he promised; to the daughter of Herod~ia=s,
whatsoever _she would ask, unto the half of his ltingdomv.
He had no legal nor moral right" to make such an unwar-
rantable: and indiscriminate promise. The oath itself was
unlawful in its own. rzature. When, therefbre,-i for “his
oatifs sake,” “he sent an executioner” to beheadi John»th~e:
Baptist ;; he was not only guilty of stwearing rmlatu3full_y,i but
of murder in additioin. When“ more than forty men”-of

th‘;eJews,. “ banded together,,”l and bound themselvesi“lund~er i
a great curse, that they would neither eat nor drink until -

they had: killed Paul; their oath was unlawful in its own

nature, and they could not execute it, in evlther of its conch} .

tions, without being guilty of murder in the first degree.
Had» they suceeededtin. killing Paul, it’ must have been at
most iaggravflatedl breach of the sixth commandment. Had;
they persevereld in abstaining, from food,“ they» must havein--
lenitably beenlgaulilityltof suicide-  There was no altiernativre;
iforthem: therefore, in order toldo right, but atom hieaklitlzeir
unlowfwlioatht ;. ‘i in takirlgil Which, Y,  committed 3.‘. great sin,

‘*7

It is evident, therefore, that no oath or promise whatever,
can bind any roan to do that which in itstelf is gmtlawful ,-
for that which in itself is unlawful, can ‘never be made laW-
ful either by the promiser or by the promises.

The same principle will hold true, when an oath or prom»-
ise contravenes a previous engagement. If I» am bound by

r contract, oath or engagement, to any person, or body of men,

common sense teaches, that I cannot destroy that previous
obligation by any subsequent oath. If I am bound by oath
of allegiance, to support the government of these United
States, it is impossible for me to absolve myself from that
obligation, merely by a subsequent oath of allegiance to a
distinct and independent power. In this case my subse-
quent oath of allegiance is unlawful in its own nature ; and,
consequently, though I sinned in taking it, I do not sin in

its violation. So of private contracts. Common sense, and

common law teach, that the previous «olaligation must pre-~
vail, which renders the second, of a contrary tenor, null and
void. If I leave the wife of my youth, whom «I have sworn
to love, cherish, protect and support ;'and. bind myself, by
the same contract, to another, While the first is living; it
cannot be denied, that my marriage vows, in the second in-«
stance, are void, in their own nature. They are Void, be»-
cause they are, in themselves, unlawful, and because they
must necessarily contravene the conditions of the first cove-—
nant. o matter how solemn the vow, or how imposing
the ceremony, in the second instance; it cannot alter the
conditionsof my first marriage, not bind me in any respect,

tothe second Wornan,;by the bands of wedlock. The enorw '
unity of theact, in this instance, consists in entering into “
the second engagement ; and not in treating it asrdelsitiztuterrof A

any legalor moral force. a i “ l . t
Conditional and promissory oaths cannot be binding tvlzere
the conditions either‘ prone false, or remain. tmfulfllleel onrtlze
port of the promises. A In the marriage covenant, for exam»-
ple, the engagements are conditional, promissoryland reoip.-n

8.,

meal. If a man marries a wife, on the supposition that she
is chaste and virtuous, but afterward receives plenary evi-
dence that she is and has been an infamous character, his
marriage vows may be considered nugatory, and he is justly
entitled to a divorce. Again, if I his wife, though virtuous
when married, becomes an infidel in her affectiolns and con»

duct, violating the conditions of the marriage vow,-«--—-it is evi—.

dent, that his obligation to love, cherish, protect and sup-
port her, is virtually nullified ; and, so far as moral right is
concerned, she has no just claim upon his maintenance as a
husbandp This is generally admitted, in reciprocal conf-
tracts and engagements, thatwhere the conditions of one
party are false, or remain unfulfilled, the other is discharged

from the obligation. I ' i

gt sThe same, I conceive to be true, where the conditions of
an oath or promise are found to be impracticable. I No man is
eirer under moral obligation to performimpossibilities 5 and
of course no man can bind himself, either by oath, or prom-
ise, to perform impossibilities. If I go to a mechanic, and,
by false representations, engage him to perform a certain
piece of work, in a specified time; but on commencing the
Work,’ he finds it much greater than I had represented, and
of course out of his power to accomplish in it the time speci-
fied, he is certainly, of right, released from his obligation, and

I the promise he has made can be of no moral force whatever.

; I might take up more time, in treating upon the nature of

oathsiandl promises; but suflicient has already been said to’
I trust that the positions I

answer“ my present T purpose.
have here laid’ down, will not be disputed, but commend
themselves to every man’s reason and conscience; and I
am happy to find-them, in accordance with the opinions of

I Dr. PALEY, on the same subject. a  I
“ Promisory‘oaths,’’~ says this distinguished Moral Phi»,
I loisopher, “ are not‘Z>incling' Where the promise itself would

not‘beso.” I He then directs the reader to see his ‘F Chap-
ter ofPromises.” Under this head he says,  

9

“ 1. Promises are not binding, where the performance is
impossible. ,
2, Promisesrare not binding, where the performance is

iunlawful.

There are two cases of this : one, where the unlawful-

, ness is known to the parties at the time of making the

promise; as where an assassin promises his employer to
despatch his rival or his enemy; a servant to betray his
master; a pimp to procure a mistress 3 or a. friend to give
his assistance in a scheme of seduction. The parties in
these cases are not obliged to perform what the promise re-
quires, because they were under or. prior obligation to the
conflory. From which prior obligation what is there to dis-
charge them? Their promise----their own act] and deed.
But an obligation, from which a man can discharge himself

 by his own act, is no obligation at all. The guilt therefore

of such promises lies in the melting, not in the breaking of
them 5 and if, in the interval betwixt the promise and the
perfoiinance, a man so far recover hisreftlection, asto. re»-
pent of his engagements, he ought certainly to break through
them. 1

“ The other case is, wherethe unlawfulness did not ex-
ist, or was not known, at the time of making the promise;
as Where a merchant promises his correspondent abroad, to
send him a ship-load of corn at a time appointed, and before
the time arrive, an embargo is laid upon the exportation of
corn :~—---A woman gives a promise of marriage 3 before the

marriage, she discovers that her intended husband is too

nearly related to her, or that he has a. wife yet living.

9‘ This rule,” continuesthe Doctor, “that prornises are
void, where the performance is unlawful,” extends alsopto
imperfect obligations ; for the reason of the rule ‘Altoids of all
obligations. Thus,if you promise a man la pldlieap 01’ YOU!‘
vote, and he afterward render himself unifixt/t5~T3CeiVe em-L131‘:
you are absolved from the obligation o/fx§’°l"‘tllP1'°mi595 .01‘:

if a better candidate appear, and it}»a’i“”*9. case in which you

W4“

»
,a
,/

rt‘/‘Hi

10

are bound by oath, or otherwise, to govern yourself by the
qualification, the promise must be broken through.” Again
he says, that “ promises are not binding, where they contra-
dict a former promise ; because the promise is then unlaw-
ful»-which resolves this case into the last.” On the same
su ‘ect e sa s a erroneous romises are no in in
bj ,h y,tht“ p tbdg

, in certain cases; as,

1. Wherethe error proceeds from the mistake or mis-
representation of the promises.
Because a promise evidently supposes the truth of the

" account, ‘which the promises relates inorder to obtain it.

A beggar solicits your charity by a story of the most pitiable
distress; you promise to relieve him if he will call again :-~----

in the interval, you discover his story to be made up of lies 3  

this discovery, no doubt, releases you from your promise.
One who wants your service, describes the business or of»
fice for which he would engage you ;-—-—~l-you promise to un-
dertake it : when you enter upon it, you find the profits
less, the labor more, or some material circumstance differ-
ent from the account he gave you :—---«in such case, you are
not bound by your promise.

2. When the promise is understood by the promises to
proceed upon a certain supposition, or when the promiser
apprehended it to be so understood, and that supposition
turns out to be false; then the promise is not binding.

“ This intricate rule will be best explained by an example.
A father receives an account from abroad, of the death of
his only son ;-—--sooniafter which he promises his fortune to
his nephew. The account turns out to be false. The
father, we say, is released from his it promise; not merely
beeausetthe never would have made it, had he known’ the
truth""0£.. the case,---for that alone will not do ;—-wbutibeclause

ith€I18tPh“éW~ialso understood the promise to proceed upon
13116 S11PP0Siti0I1,of his cousin’sdeath; or,tat least, his uncle .

thought he so 1111f‘-t'==rstoo‘d' it, and could not think otherwise.
The promise proceérldcd upon this supposition in the prorni-~

‘it

11

set-’s own apprehension,,and, as he believed, in the apprea
hension of both parties; and this belief of his is the pre«
cise circumstance which sets him free. The foundation of

this rule is plainly this : a man is bound only to satisfy the _

expectation which he intended to excite; whatever condi-
tion therefore he intended to subject that expectation to, be»
comes and essential condition of. the promise.” *

Thus it appears, that Doctor Paley corroborates all thatl
have said on the subject of unlawful oaths, and brings it
down to the apprehension of the lowest capacity.

I now proceed to apply what has been said, ‘to the oaths
and principles of the Masonic Institution, which I have had
in my eye from the beginning. ,

As the whole masonic fabric rests upon its oaths, if these
are found to be unlawful, or, in other words, to be neither
legally nor morally binding,---—then it will appear, that the
building rests upon the sand 3 the conduct of seceders may
be justified; the imputation of moral perjury can no tlotiger
rest upon their heads; and others may have no fear in
bursting their bonds of mental degradation, and casting off
the yoke by which they are held in perpetual slavery to this
mystery of abominations.

Althouglt it is diflicult, if not impossible, to compare moral
evils; yet, it appears, that the sin of keeping an unlawful
oath, may be as great, if not more aggravated, than in
Z)2“8(,Z]tI7i7Ig,OI1£’:, which is lawful and right. The sin of Herod,
in keeping his wicked oath, was certainly a thousand fold

greater, than if he had sworn to promote John , the ‘
Baptist to great honor, and then broken his obligation. If,
then, it is found, that rnasonicoaths are -not binding; allthe

members of the institution are under the most solemn and

sacred obligation to come out and leave it. They have

no right to keep an unlawful oath, any more than itl1,;e,}Vl had
tortoise or impose, it; and they had IlO,n10,J.“e~1‘,lgl111 to take or
impose it, than Saul had to abjure the/ijpieople, that tphey

 See Pa1ey’s.Mora.1 Philosophy, Chapter 011-‘~t®ttiiiia. i T

12

should not taste food that day ; than Herod to behead John
the Baptist ;. or than the Jews to band together, and swear,
that they would neither eat nor drink, until they had killed
Paul. ‘i i V

When therefore, I apply the foregoing rules to the case
in hand, [cannot only consider myself absolved from the

force of all masonic laws, but solemnly bound, by every

thing sacred and divine, to abjure every vestige of masonic
rites and obligations. 
In the first place, masonic oaths contravene our duty and
allegiance to God. Here is a direct application of the very
first rule which we have considered- It cannot be denied,
that God has given us existence, that he has made us for
himself, and that we are bound, by primary and indissoluble
obligations, to consecrate and devote our lives to his service.
What legal or moral right, then, has any person, to swear
away that life, which he is previously bound to devote to the
services of God, and which God alone has the right to take !
Let the principle once he established, that a man has the
moral right to forfeit his lzfe, in any way, or on any occasion,
not required by the law of God, and murder and suicide
must cease to be criminal, and no security can be guarantied
to civil community, by any precept, either human or divine.
On this principle We might easily find thousands, who would
not hesitate to commit murder with the mere‘ replication, that
they are ready to pay the forfeiture. Established in this be-
lief, they would have nothing to fear from a state of retribu-~
tion, in having robbed either themselves or others of that life,
which, by natural, moral, primary, and inclissoluble ties, is
to be devoted to the service of God. If,‘therafore, it is ad--
mitted, that any one has the right, on any occasion, prescrib-
ed by human authority, to swear away his life as a forfeit 5 it
must be admitted, that anyone has the right to commit the

highest degree of sacrilege, and to break through the strong-

est moral restraints, which can be imposed upon moral beings.
In this view, therefore, masonic oaths "must inevitably

13

eontravene our duty and allegiance to God; and therefore,
must be considered, in every respect, unlawful and pre-
sumptuous. The candidate for free masonry isobliged to
swear away his life at every step. This must be true, wheth-
er we give to the penalty of the obligation either an active or
a passive signification. The most favorable construction

which I have ever yet heardiput upon the penalty of mason- ‘

ic obligations, is, that the candidate pledges himself to lose
his life, rather than violate his masonic engagements. By‘
this construction, we are obliged to consider the Entered
Apprentice, as swearing, that, rather than reveal any masonic
secret, he will “have his throat out across, his tongue torn

  out by the roots, and his hoily buried in the rough sands of

the sea, at low water-»marh, where the tide ehlzs and flows twice
in twenty-four-hours.” The Fellow Craft swears, that, rathwl
er than transgress any masonic law, he will have his left breast
torn open, and his heart and Vitals taken from thence, thrown
over his left shoulder, and carried into the valley of Jehosha-
phat, there to become a prey to the wild beasts of the field,
and the vultures of the air.” The Master Mason swears,
that rather than .“ prove wilfully guilty of violating any part
of his oath, or obligation,” he will have his “ body severed in
two in the midst, his bowels burnt to ashes, and the ashes scat-
tered to the four winds of heaven.” The Mark; Master Ma;

, son binds himself under no less penalty, “than to have his

right ear smote off, that he may forever be unable to hear
the word, and his right hand chopped off, as the penalty of
an irnpostor.” The Past Master obligates himself under the

T penalty of having his “tongue split from tip to root.” The

Most Excellent Master imprecates upon himself the penalty
of having his “breast torn open, and his heart and ‘Vitals ta»-
ken from thence, and exposed to rot on the dunghillf’. The
Royal Arch Mason swears, under the penalty of having his
“ scull smote off‘, and his brains exposed tothe scorching rays

of the sun.” Thus we see, that the candidate for free ma--_

sonry does, to all intents, swear away this life, at every step,

14»

up toithe seventh degree, and that, even though we attach
to masonic penalties a merely passive signification, this
simple circumstance renders the masonic oath, to all intents
and purposes, null and void. The candidate has no more
moral right, in the sight of God, to swear that he will lose his
life, rather than ‘reveal masonic secrets, or violate masonic
laws, than lhave to swear, that I will “ have my throat cut
across, and my tongue torn out by the roots, rather than leave
this place of worship, before I have finished delivering this
address.”

In the secondplace, masonic oaths are, in their own na-4 .
- ture, unlawful.

Here is an application of our second rule,
which is exactlyzin point. That theyare unlawful in their own
nature, is evident from what I have just stated. « It is unlaw-
ful,.in its own, nature, for a man to swear away his life. It
is unlawful, in its own nature to enter into any engagement
which contravenes our duty to God. Besides, no person
has a lawful right to make an indiscriminate and unconditional

promise to keep secrets, or to sustain any institution, of which

he is i norant at the time the romise is made. But this is
9 P

precisely the case in the administration of masonic oaths.--

The candidate is made to swear, indiscriminately and un-

conditionally, to that which he knows nothing about. The

Entered Apprentice, while kneeling at the altar, is made to
“ promise and swear,” under no less penality, than to have
his “ throat cut across, his tongue torn out by the roots, and
his body buried in the rough sands of the sea,” that he “ will
always hail, ever conceal, and never reveal any part, or
parts, art or arts, point or points, of the secrets, arts and

mysteries of ancient Free Masonry, which he has received,

is about to receive, or may hereafter be instructed in, to any
person or persons in the known world, except it be to a true
and lawful brother mason.” , Now the candidate is entirely
ignorant of that to which he swears, thus indiscriminately and

unconditionally. He knows not Whether the secrets, in which
he 13 aboutito be instructed, are right orvvrong, lawful. or,

' c

  15

unlawful. “ They may, it is true, be harmless in the abstract;

and they may require the head of John the Baptist; or
that he should keep the secrets of a brother in all cases ex-
cept murder and treason; and, a few steps farther in ad-
vance, not excepting even them. So in every degree. The
novice is sworn to keep secrets, of which he is yet entirely
ignorant, and of which as yet he has no possible means of
knowing,‘ that they are not in direct opposition to the laws
of God and his country.

Now who can help discerning, that such oaths are of the
same nature with that of Herod to the daughter of Hero-
dies? They are such as no moral being has alrightto make,
and, of course, are unlawful in their own nature. But, be-
ing unlawful, in their own nature, they are neither morally
nor legally binding, and, consequently, ought to be broken.

In this case, I think there is a precept directly in point, as‘

written in the Levitical law. “ If a soul swear, pronouncing
with _his lips to do evilor to do good, whatsoever it be that
a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him ;
when he kznoweth of it, than he shall lie guilty in one of these.
And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these
things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that
thing; and he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord,
for his sin which he hath sinned ;—-—-——and the priest shall make
an atonement for him concerning his sin.” '

It is a matter no less evident, that our thircl rule will i

apply to masonic oaths,as contravening previous engagements.
Every free born citizen of our country is under either a tacit
or explicit engagement to support the Constitution of the
United States, and the government of the State or common-
wealth in which he may reside. He is under a prior and
natural obligation to do this, from the protectionhereceives,
in common with others, in all the rights and privileges of a
free citizen. He is, therefore, under  previous engage.-,~,
ment to devote his life to the service ofifhis country,as well
as totthe service of God. 4 Now what “legal or moral right

16

has he, in the masonic institution to swear away that life,
which he is under a previous obligation to devote to the ser--
vice ofhis country P What right has he to swear, under any
penalty whatever, that he will keep secret those things which
he knows not but the public good will require him to dis-
close ? What right has he to swear allegiance to a distinct
and s_eparate government, whose principles and laws may, to
say the least, come in direct collision with the constitution
and laws of the government, which he is under previous ob-—
ligation to support? Yet, all this is done in the several
oaths of the “ Free and Accepted Mason.” The Fellow
Craft Mason A obligates himself in the following words :
“ Furthermore do I promise andswear, that I will support the
constitution of the Grand Lodgeof the United States, and

“of ,the,Grand Lodge of this State, under which this Lodge

is held, and conform to all the by-laws, rules and regulations
of this, or any other lodge, of which I may at any time
hereafter become a member, so far as in my power.” The
Master Mason swears to the same, in very nearly the same
words. The Mark Master, Past Master, Most Excellent
Master and Royal Arch Mason severally promise and swear,
that they will support the constitution of the General Grand
Royal Arch Chapter of the United States of America, also
the constitution of the Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the
State, under which the lodge or chapter is held, in which
they receive their degrees; and to conform to all the by»
laws, rules’ and regulations of the same lodge, or chapter, or
of any other, of which they may afterward become mem-

A hers. Now the candidate, at the time of taking his oath, is

entirely ignorant of those constitutions, by-laws, rulesand
regulations, which he swears to support ; andzof course, it is

A" impossible for him to tell that they are not, both in letter and

spirit, in direct opposition to the constitution and laws ‘of the
civ;il*"government which he is under previous obligation to

supporting This swearing ignorantly, and at random, there-~ I

fore, renders the obligation nugatory; because the candi-

17

date is just as liable to swear to maintain that, which con-
travenes a previous engagement, as the daughter of Herodias,
to ask the head of John the Baptist, in consequence of the
presumptuous and foolish oath of Herod the Tetrarch. ,

I In relation to a brother of the same degree, the Master
Mason binds himself in the following words : “ Furthermore
do I promise and swear, that I will not speak evil of a brother
Master Mason, either behind his back or before his face,

but will apprize him of all approaching danger, if in my a

power. Furthermore do I promise and swear, that a Mas-
ter Mason’s secrets, given to me in charge as such, shall re»-
main as secure and inviolable in my breast as in his own,
when communicated to me, murder and treason excepted;
and they left to my own election.” The Mark Master, swears
to the same; because he takes an oath in addition to all his
former obligations. The oaths of the Past and Most Excel-
lent Masters, incorporate the same language. The Royal
Arch Mason obligates himself still further. “Furthermore
do I promise and swear, that I will aid and assist a jcompank
ionsRoyallArch Mason, when engaged in anyjdifficulty, and
espouse his cause, so far as torextricate him from the same,

I if in my power, whether he be right or wrong. Also, that I

will promote a companion Royal Arch Mason’s political pre-
ferment in preference to another of equal qualifications.
Furthermore do I promise and swear, that a companion
Royal Arch Mason’s secrets, given me in charge as such, and I

knowing them to be such, shall remain as secure and inviolabler
in my breast as in his own, murder and treason not excepted ;”

or, as it is administered in some chapters, “ all the secrets
of a companion iwitltout ecrceptrlon.” Now we will suppose
a Royal Arch Mason seated upon the bench, or in the jury
box, or called upon to testify, a companion of thesamer de-
gree being on trial ; who does not see, that both theletter
and spirit of his masonic, must contravene his civil oath?
On the one hand, he has sworn to judge impartially between
party and party, or to render a verdicttacjcorcling to Iawandt

18
evidence, or totell theptruth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth. On the other, he has bound shimself under no
less penalty, than to have his body severed in two, and his
bowelsburnt to ashes, or to have his scull struck off, that he
will not speak evil of a brother mason, either before his face
or behind his back; that he will apprizehim of all approach-
ing danger, and extricate him from any d-zfiic-uilty, if in his
power, whether he be right or wrong ; and that all the se-
crets of his companion, given in charge as such, shall re-
main inviolably concealed by himself, not even ecocepting
murder and treason; I !, No one candeny, that the masonic
and the civil oath, in this case, come in diametrical opposi-

tion, and that the oneor the other of them must be broken I  

Here is the strongest possible temptation to perjury i‘; and it
cannot be denied, that the Royal Arch Mason is under a7

thousand fold stronger temptation to violate his civil than his A

masonic obligation. On the one hand, he has the bare pos-—.
sibility of being convicted, with the Whole fraternity to de-
fend him ; i on the other, the direst Vengeance oftthe brother-

s hood, with all the horrors of masonic wrath and masonic im-

precations to return upon his head. Every principle of
moral and political philosophy, however, must here justify
theiviolationiaof his masonic, ratherthan of his civil oath,
because this previous obligation to God and his country

mustirenderhis masonic obligation nugatory. But if his a

masonic-obligation is nugatory, in a given case, then it was
always fnugatory. For he had never any right to take an
oath, which must, inpagiven case, contravene a previous
obligation.‘ i t   i t

In this connexion, it may be remarked, that masonic oaths

must necessarily come in collision with the prior and sacred
, ‘ duties of the family» circle, There is no civil or socia1i=rela-4
t tion so near, and noobligation more binding and indissoluble,
than that of husband and wife. : This connexion isof such‘

annature, that what must interest one, must necessarily in-
terest the other 5 what is for the welfareof one, must necesé

19

sarily be for the welfare of the other ; what is to the digs
paragement or injury of one, must necessarily‘ disparage the
other; and in what one possesses, either of knowledge or
interest, the other has a natural, inherent and unalienable
right. In these respects, we have the authority of divine

i inspiration that the husband and wife “are no more twain,

buteone flesh.” What an incongruity then, and how incon-
sistent with the marriage covenant, for the husband to have
secrets, which he asserts to be of vast interest and impor-
tance, locked in his own breast, and which he will have his
throat cut across, and his tongue torn out by the roots,
rather than impart to the partner of his bosom! He can
leave his family, and the companion of his youth, to engage

in business, every month, which he says, is of the utmost

consequence, but she is never to know what that business is,
or why it should excite in his bosom such vast interest. In
this respect, I cannot but thinlr, that free masonry violates
the strongest and most endearing covenant which can be en-
tered into in thefamily of man; In order to set the subject

in a still stronger light, let us turn the tables, and see if any

man would endure to be tautalized, as every mason is obliged,
by his obligation, to mock and tantalize his wife. W The law
borer comes in from his field, the mechanic from his shop,
themerchant from his store, or the attorney from his office,
worn down, fatigued and perplexed with the business of the
day, and inquires of his domestics “Where is my wife P”
He is answered, W“ She is gone away.” “ Where ?”- “ We
do not know; she did not tell where she was going; but

we suppose she is gone to the lodge l” Gone to the lodge 
sighs the weary, perplexed and afflicted husband. , Well l
H be waits,and rurninates in silence, till somewherernear the

hour of midnight, and his wife returns 3 it may be, none too
sober with the “ refreshment” she has received, in the sus-

pension of her A‘? labor.” a Where have you been,  dear? ,
0,1 have been away, on important business ;I have been to

the lodge. But what business, of suchtvastimportance, as

in

. God.

20

to detain you till this late hour? The wife replies, “ My
business you can never know ; though of vast importance,
it is of such a nature that it must forever beconcealed with-
in. my own breast; I am sworn never to divulge the secrets

of masonry !” Now, I ask, if there is one man in ten thaw.

sand, who would endure to be thus treated by his wife ; or
who would not consider such conduct a most flagrant viola-
tion of the marriage vow ! I leave the question to address
itself to every man’s reason and conscience in the sight of

I cannot but“heretadrve1't to one “ other point in the Mas-
ter’s obligation, which, While it illustrates the topic now un-
der discussion, at the sometime exhibits the licentiousness
of masonic morality. “ Furthermore, do I promise and
swear, that I will not violate the chastity of aMaster Mason’s
wife, mother, sister, or daughter, I knowing them to be such,
nor suffer it to be done by others, if in my power to prevent
it.” Here the question naturally arises, By What authori-
ty either human or divine, has the masonic. institution, or
masonic morality, restricted the force and extent of the
seventh commandment, to the first degree of consanguinity fl
Shame !------to such an outrage upon the purity, beauty and ex»-
cellence of the Divine Law. I will not insult the fairer and

better part of my audience, by dwelling upon this subject.
 But, surely, it can be but little credit to the female connex-

ions of freernasons, if theyneed such security, as this moral

clause in the Master’s oath; and it mustbe the most flagrant

outrage and insult upon the virtue and dignity of others, to
be considered the lawful game of masonic concupiscence. I
Another ground on which masonic oaths can be neither
morally nor legally binding, is the substance of our fourth
rule ; that conditional and promissory oaths cannot be bind-
ing, where the conditions either prove false or remain un-

fulfilled on the part of? thelpromisee;r In the masonic instiu

tution,“Free masonryis, the promisee, and the candidate is
the promiser. He is made, to believe, that the institution

21

possesses great‘ advantages. That it is moral, scientific and
charitable. That if he pays his money and conforms to the
rules and principles of the order, he shall find an equivalent.
He takes it for granted, that an institution, which has existed
time out of mind, as this is said to have donefmust be some-
thing beside an empty sound. Upon such conditions, he
enters, pays his money, and binds himself bythe most hor--
rid, barbarous and blasphemous oath, which ingenuity and

barbarism united could invent. But, instead of finding an ‘

equivalent, he finds nothing like it. The institution is neither

ancient, moral, scientific nor charitable ; but the contrary.

The conditions, therefore, on the part of the promises, are
altogether false“; and the candidate, of course, is justly re-
leased from his obligation. .
The same doctrine holds true, in theapplication of an--
other role, that no oath or promise is binding, where the
condition or performance is impracticable. This holds true
of many points in masonic oaths. Such is the case in the
following clauses, in the Master Mason’s oath. “ Further»-
more do I promise and swear,“that I will go on a Master
Mason’s errand, Whenever required, even should I have to
go barefoiiot and bareheaded, if Within the length of my
cable tow. Furthermore do I promise and swear, that I
will always remember a brother Master Mason, when on my
knees, offeringl up my devotions to Almighty God.” In re-:
spect to the first of these engagements, the candidate
swears, that he will go on a Master Mason’s errand, when»;
evertregairccl, even if he has to go bareheaded and barefoot,

if within the length of his cable tow; that is, mystically,

the distance of three miles ; within which he is bound to go,
or to obey a summons. Now suppose he is required, in the
dead of winter, in the situation above described, to go this
distance, on a Master Mason’s errand; who does not see

that he has sworn to perform an impossibility?’ -The same .

is true, in respect to always remembering a brother Master

Mason, in the exercises of devotion. Everylrational man -

22

will consider that such an oath must inevitably ‘be violated.
Perhaps, however, those who framed this part of the mas-
ter’s oath took into consideration, that avast majority of
masons never pray at all; and therefore, could be in no
danger of violating thisconditional engagement. ‘

o It is important to remark, that the circumstances, under
which the masonic oaths are administered, are such as to
render the obligations nugatory : the candidate is thrown in--
to the most embarrassing situation. One of the principal
secrets, is, to embarrass and ppperplex him as much as possi»
ble. To effect this, he is divested of his wearing apparel;
clad in as ridiculous costume pg, hoodwinked, and led into the
lodge with a rope round his neck. Having been led several
timesaboutin the lodge, he is caused to kneel atthe “altar,
on his naked left knee ; when the oath is administered to him,
word by word, and sentence by sentence, as children are

sometimes taught thealphabet. The oath, also, is one of

which he is entirely ignorant. It is intended to be kept a
secret from every candidate, that there is an oath, until the
moment he is placed in a situation to receive it at the altar.
In this situation, the candidate is generally frightened, em-
barrassed and greatly ‘perplexed. He has a rope about his
neck, and is blindfolded 3 so that he knows resistance
is vain. lie is constrained to go forward, and make the
bestof it. When he gets through, he knows very little
more about his obligation, than when he began.
  Now it is easy to see, that any oath, administered under
such circumstances, is in a great measure compulsory. But
a compulsory l oath or promise, can certainly be neither
morally nor legally binding.  .
‘The oaths ofpfree masonry can be neither morally nor
legally binding 3 because the greatest good of the public re-
quires that the imposition should be. exposed. Extensive

frauds are always an extensive public evil. But never was
there a greater cheat imposed upon thecommunity than the
masonic institution. Itspretensionps are all false andridicuu

as

lons..~ Although it boasts of its antiquity, science, charity

and moral virtue, it is in allrthese respects aperfect charla-
tan; “It is every Way calculated to gull young men of their
money, without an equivalent; to make tools of them, for
the service of ambitious demagogues; and to impose pre-
tended valuable services upon community, while at the

same time it is sucking the very life-blood from the body

politic. , . i

That previous duty which every citizen owes to his coun»
try, therefore, requires the violation of masonic oaths, by the
exposure of an imposition, which has threatened the extinc-—
tion of all our civil and religious privileges.

Another thing concealed by the oaths of the masonic in-‘

stitution, is, its profaneness. Here is another circumstance,
which renders the obligation neither morally nor legally

binding. No person can lawfully bind himself to conceal

that, which dishonors God,and injuriously afiects thefmor--
als of community. But that this is true, in relation to? the

masonic institution, ought neither to be denied nor conceal--T

ed. The oathsthemselves are in a very high degree
shocking and profane. To make‘ an appeal to Almighty
God, on occasionsso trifling, and under such circumstances
as those, in which the candidate is sworn, with the innpre-

cation of such horrid and barbarouspenalties as are anneisz-‘

ed to masonic oaths, I am obliged to consider a most fla-

grant breach of the third commandment. I know nothow

any one, Whojustifies masonic oaths, can lift up his head in
presence of that Being, who has said, “ Thou shalt not take

the name of the Lord thy Godiin vain ;” and especially, . T

when he has added, “ Swear not at all 3 neither by heaven,

for it is God’s throne, nor by the earth, for it is his afoot-4 H

stool. ‘nor by Jerusalem‘, for it is the "city of. the great ‘King;
neither shalt thou swear , by thy head, becauseliithou I canst

not make one hair white or black.” Surely,iif our Divine

Lord here intended to make an exceptionin‘ favor of civil

oaths ; no one can rationally think, that he intended to make.

24:

an exception in favour of those horrid extra-judicial oaths,
vvhichare administered in the masonic institution. But,
the multiplication of those blasphemous obligations, in the
masonic order, mustpcertainly have an immoral effect, in
weakening if not destroying the force of civil obligations;
and must present the strongest temptation to perjury, to
those who feel themselves bound by their .masonic engage-
ments. It has beenthe opinion of the most able jurists,
and the most distinguished moral philosophers, that the
multiplication evenooficivil oaths, isavery great evil, and
calculated injuriously to affect themorals of civil communi-~
ty. Dr, Paley says, in relation to oaths, under the govern-
ment of at Great Britain, that “the obscureand elliptical
form of the oath, together with the frequency and levity
with which it is administered, has brought about a general
inadvertency to the obligation of oaths; which, both in a
religious and political view, is much to be lamented : and it
merits public consideration, whether the requiring of oaths
on so many frivolous occasions, especially in the customs,
and in the qualification for petty offices, has any other ef-
fect, than to make them cheap in the minds of the people.
A pound of tea cannot travel regularly from the ship to the

consumer, without costing half a dozen oaths at the least;

and the same security for the due discharge of their oflice,
namely, that of anioath, is required from a church--iwarden
and aniarchbishop, from a petty constable and the chief
justice ini‘England.’ Let the law continue its own sanctions,
if they be thought requisite; but let it spare the soleznnity

of an oath. And where, from the want of something bet-

ter to depend upon, it is necessary to accept, men’s own

word or own account, let it annex to prevarication penalties

proportioned to the public mischief of the offences.” *‘ ,
But the _profaneness of masonic oaths themselves‘, is not

allpthe soil which lies beneath them. The Holy Scriptures
are degraded to a level with theicommon working tools of ii

* Paleyts Moral and Political Philosophy ; subject of Oaths.‘ 1

A : .;._;§='mf< ‘.2.

25

an operative mechanic. ‘The word of God is perverted,
profcmed, applied to mean and secular objects, and used
With themost shocking familiarity, on the most trifling and
ludicrous occasions, and intermingled with the most profane,
and ridiculous ceremonies. The names and attributes of
Jehovah himself, are used as pass~words, mockmiracles are
wrought as signs, and even a personification of the Deity is

“attempted in the burning bush! In short, every obligation,

and every rite, in thehrnasonic institution, is directly calcula-
ted to bring sacred things into contempt, and to lead 011:
step by step, into absolute skepticism. There can be no
doubt, from the history which has been given of the institu-
tion, by the Abbe Barruel, Robison, Bernard and others,
that the order begins in Theisrn, and ends in Atheism. It
expunges the name of Christ, in the first degrees, from all
its formulas, and blots out the name and existence of Isra-
el’s God, in the last; It begins, by overcoming some of the
minor prejudices, and more puritanical customs of the fam-
ily circle; and ends by “crushing the head of It serpent,
which WE (the order) detest as an idol ‘that is adored by
the idiot and vulgar under the name of RELIGION ! l ! ”
I appeal to my hearers, if any oath can be either morally or
legally binding, which conceals such wickedness’ and blas-
phemy merely from the gaze of community at large ; While
it ensnares and tolls along the unwary youth, step by step,
into the labyrinth of infidelity, and tits him for interminable

ruin, by a systematic and organized scheme of moral polluv  .

tion? ~ r ‘ W,.w

yiItis.an alarming consideration, that masonic obligatidills
1'e‘l“i1‘3l‘h-ei concealment" of crime ! Every masonict4,,/éicreta
short of murder and treason, is to be kept invialablliiifll‘ the
breastof the Master Mason, whenever it is 457 311 him in

charge; and even these two proscribed sen/limltiefi are 130

find a “sanctum sanctorum,” beneath  f°°Ve“3 l°f~l5h9
“ Holy Royal Arch.” ~ Now when wesysonsidelr, that there
. .  i as r .
may be in our “country, atthis mom;.at,from two hundred
4  l

26

thousand to three hundred thousand, who have sworn to
conceal every thing short of murder and treason, when
committed by a brother; and that a very it large proportion
have obligated themselves to conceal even those enormities ;
We may well inquire, “Where is the INDEPENDENCE,
for which our fathers fought, and bled, and died, and which
has been our boost, and story, and song, for more than half
a century I’ Where, is our boasted trial by jury, to enjoy the
privilege of which’, in our native land, our sires girded on
their armor, and marched to the field of battle and of car-
nage, against the roaring and thunders of the British Lion?
Where is ithe boasted right of private yjudgment, the liberty
of speech, and the freedom of the press 3 when the first one,
who dares to utter a syllable, or lift a hand, or wield a pen,
even -to ringmirte, vvhether the institution is good or bad, is
singled out asa victim for rnasonicvengeance; and is pro-
scribed, at once, as an outlaw, an “ unworthy and vicious
Vagabond,” to be pursued, and hunted till the day of his
death 5’ If such things as these, and the barbarous oaths by
which they are sanctioned, are not to be looked out of coun-
tenance by a “ nation of freeman ;” then let no longer the
tales of t “ olden time” be told in the ears of our children.
Let the valour of Republicans be buried in ~oblivion§  Let
‘‘ the straights of Thermopylae,” and “ the heights, of
Charlerstovvrf’ be eternally forgotten. i Let the story of
British wrongs never again be lisped by an American
tongue. i Let the Eagle and the Motto of our Union be
Uotteid from our national banner, with the tears of weeping
1lbe=ty; and let us inscribe in their stead, in bold relief, a
death’: head and cross bones, with the following oath of the
Thricfz‘ illustrious‘ Knight :----“ You further swear, that,
should ,1/W mow another to violate any tessential point’, of
W58 051773‘ 4150”: Lora will use your most decrideol endeavors, by

i the blessing of G03, to bring slush personeto the, strictest 

‘W091 00nd’5gM9”mi37ment, agreeably to the rules, and images
of our ancientfraternttg; {and 11,53 by pointing Jnimtout to

 

27

the world as an unworthy zzagahonol ; by opposing his into-~
rest, by deranging his business, by transferring his character
after him wherever he may go,’ and by exposing himto the
contempt of the whole flaternity and the world, but of our
illustrious oroler more especially, during his whole natural
life-”   l  

, Another thing which demands our attention, in relation to
this subject, is, the incentive and encouragement of masonic

oaths, in the commission of crime. Leta gang of freeboot-r

ers be disposed to combine for the purpose of rapine,forge-

rg/,Aarson,, or any other purpose, which comes within the ju-
risdiction ofknaves and rogues ; and what can be better
fitted for the constitution of their club, than the oath of the

Masters, or Royal Arch degree 5’ “ Furthermore, do lprom-
ise and swear, that I will not speak evil of a brother Master
Mason, either behind his back, or before his face, but will
apprise him of all approaching danger, if in my power.
Furthermore do I promise and swear, that a Master Ma-
son’s secrets, given to me in charge as such, and I knowing
them to be such, shall remain as secure and inviolable in my
breast as in his own, when communicated to me, murder and
treason expected; and they left to my own election.”
“ Furthermore do [promise and swear, that I will aid and
assist a companion Royal Arch Mason, when engaged in
any clifiiculty 3 and espouse his cause, so far as to extricate
him from the same, if in my power, whether he be right or
wrong. Furthermore do I promise and swear, that a com»-
panion Royal Arch Mason’s secrets, given me in charge as
such, and I knowing them to be such, shall remain as se-
cure and inviolahle in my breast as in his own, marriage and
treason not esoceptecl...” Now common sense must teach,
that honest men have no need of such obligations, but that
they are exactly fitted for a covert to rogues sand villains.
Let any person also, be encouraged with the assurance, that,
having committed a crime, he can cast "himself upon a
brother or companion for protection, who has sworn to keep

2'8

hisfsecrets, espouse his cause, and, if possible, to extricate
him from any difiiculty,-—--and it is difficult to conceive what

greater inducement can be given» him to pursue his depre--

dations. When, therefore, we consider the spread of free
masonry, in our own country, for a few years past, We need
no longer be astonished at the hitherto unaccountable’ and
unparalleled increase of crime. Nor need we, again, he at
all surprised, that, on certain occasions, it has been so ex-
tremely diflicult to obtain an impartial retribution in_ our
courts of justice. Had I a case in court, to be submitted to
a jury of Master or Royal Arch Masons, especially where
my antagonist was a mason, in fellowship with the institu-
tion,—-—+-I would not give a pin for my prospect of obtaining
justice, however clear the evidence or explicit thelavv, on
my side of the question. if r T  

But, it is unnecessary for me, further to draw inferences
for enlightened and intelligent citizens. The facts are be»-
fore you; the natural consequences are plain as the light of
the sun; and you can arrive at the result as easily, and as
certainly, as by an arithmetical process.

You see, then, fellow citizens, some of the inherent and
consequential evils of the masonic institution. The question,

therefore, naturally arises, What is to be done, in order to ~

effect a cure of this great moral and political disorder Pl

One of the first and principal remedies, which presents.

itself, is, the difasion of light. ~ The subject presents be--
fore us a very great‘ and alarming national evil 5 one that
threatens to subvert our independence, and to eradicate all

our civil and religious‘ privileges. It is the imperious duty.

of every citizen, therefore, by every laudable endeavor, to
elicit facts, and‘ diffuse information.

‘Watchmen in Zion should awake, and sound the alarm.
The evil is one which threatens to overwhelm the lchurch.

‘ Those very principles of illuminism, vvhich flooded France

and Germany with infidelity, and deluged one of the fairest
portions of the globe with human blood, have taken deep and

29

extensive root in this country. They have already shot
forth theirbranches, with the greatest luxuriance, and yield-
ed the “ clusters of Sodom and the grapes of Gomorrah,”
in the greatest aburidance. Those principles are inherent
in the masonic institution ; and it is altogether unphilosoplri-
cal to suppose, that the same causes will not produce the
same effects here, as at other times, and in other lands. ,
Let every citizen, therefore, in every station and relation
in life, be persuaded to do his duty. Let every one pursue

the subject with calm, deliberate, and persevering investiga-  

tion. ' The only way for any man to act consistently and
efiectually, is to act understandingly. T

Having irformed themselves, on this vastly important sub-
ject, let every citizen use the prerogative of citizens and of
republicans. It becomes all persons, whose duty it is, to
guard ourcivil and religious rights, deliberately to devise
and pursue those measures, which, in their wisdom and pru-
dence they may judge necessary to effect a remedy for ex--
isting maladies. ,

Freernen have the undoubted right to judge, and it is
their imperious duty to judge, what qualifies and what dis-
qualifies a man for office, whether executive, legislative, or
judicial; and especially, whether the oaths of the Master
and Royal Arch Mason can be consistent with those requir-
ed by law of judges, jurors and witnesses.

The administration of ewtra-judicial oaths should be dis-

ll couraged, and, if possible, prevented. They have a most

pernicious effect upon the moral sense 5 and frequently pre-

, sent the strongest temptations to perjury. 

Our young men are the glory, strength and hope of the

i nation. Every laudable exertion, therefore, should be used

with them, to prevent their being swallowed in the vortex of
infidelity, concealed beneath the oaths and mystical rites of
masonry. it i . T
In fine, we should never forget to implore the Divine
benediction and guidance, in this great and unparalleled na~

30

tional struggle. He, whose eyes are like a flame of fire,

searching every depth, and every mystery of iniquity, is able

to bring to light and defeat every hidden abomination. May
He, who nerved the arm of our fathers in battle, and gave
them wisdom in their national councils, give us, also, that
wisdom and strength which we need, to preserve that inde-
pendence which was purchased with their blood.