Now, Christian brethren and friends, as I am in possession of these facts, and many more, which time would fail to mention, and convinced, as I am, that the institution of Freemasonry is Anti-Christian, is it not my duty, as a Christian and a minister of the gospel, to come out and leave it? Can masons blame me for coming out and leaving the institution? But, it will be said, "Why did you not come out before?" I answer; I was not in possession of these facts before, by which I might be convinced. It is not long since some of these facts first came before the public. For a very considerable time, I was so blinded, as sincerely to believe, and say, that the commotion in the western part of our country, was merely a political excitement. Others, perhaps, think so still. But, being undeceived with respect to these facts, I have very naturally been led to look at others; to examine, coolly and deliberately, the history of the institution, the history and nature of its degrees, and the nature of its secret principles. This deliberate examination has brought my mind, irresistibly, to the result, which I present before you this day.

But, Why did you not withdraw secretly, and silently, from the institution, say nothing, either for or against it, and save the excitement, which must result from an open renunciation?" Answer. Such a course, I once thought, and said, was the most judicious. I did not think it necessary, that any person should come out in this open manner, on the supposition that it was best to leave the institution. But, I have become convinced, that I could not pursue this course conscientiously. Believing, as I firmly and sincerely do, that the masonic institution is Anti-Christian, I could not discharge my duty by withdrawing in silence. Now, I ask, Christian brethren and friends, on the ground that the institution is what I have stated, and its secret principles of such a nature as have been pointed out, whether you can desire me to

clergyman further stated, that in the obligation administered to him, the clause was included, “murder and treason NOT excepted ̧” He recollected this, from the following circumstance; a Baptist brother, who was "exalted" at the same time with himself, stopped, when the High Priest came to this clause, and asked "If it was so?"

leave to your sons my name and influence, as a minister of the gospel, in favor of the institution? On the ground that the institution is what has been represented, do you desire, that your children may have to plead an excuse for becoming Freemasons, what thousands have done with respect to other ministers of the gospel, that “ your minister was a Freemason?" But this must certainly be the case, were I to withdraw from the institution in silence. Should I do this, I must necessarily leave the weight of my name, example and influence, however light they might appear, in favor of the institution. But this I cannot do. In justice to my own conscience, in justice to the young and rising generation, and in justice to the cause of Christ, I must come out, openly and honestly, and declare my connexion with the masonic institution dissolved.

CORRESPONDENCE IN RELATION TO THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF FREEMASONRY PRIOR TO THE LAST CENTURY.

BOSTON, Nov. 11, 1829.

To the President and Professors of the Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass. GENTLEMEN,-In order to the acquisition and diffusion of light on the subject of Freemasonry-a subject deeply affecting the welfare of our country, the citizens of Boston, at a great public meeting, appointed the undersigned a committee to promote inquiries into the nature of its claims.

In pursuance of this duty the Committee found it to be expedient, in order to arrest the attention, and satisfy the diversity of opinions on the subject, to have recourse to different sources of information, because the testimony that would influence the opinions of some, would have little or no effect upon those of others.

The views the Committee have, gentlemen, in addressing you upon this subject, are not to elicit masonic signs, pass-words, or grips-for these are all known; but their

object is simply to ask your opinions upon a historical fact, believing that your familiar acquaintance with oriental literature must have furnished you with the means of a reply without much further research. The question is the following, viz;- Is there any known history to justify the belief that Speculative or Freemasonry had existence prior to the last century? It claims an origin coeval with time, and many believe it-some however doubt.

The expression of your sentiments upon the foregoing question, in writing, will very much oblige your respectful and obedient servants.

GEORGE ODIORNE,
JOHN D. WILLIAMS,
ABNER PHELPS,
BENJ. W. LAMB,
WILLIAM MARSTON,

HENRY GASSETT,

JONATHAN FRENCH,

THOMAS WALLEY,

DANIEL WELD,

EBENEZER WITHINGTON,

BENJ. V. FRENCH,

JOHN P. WHITWELL,

Suffolk Committee.

DR. WOODS' REPLY.

THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, ANDOVER,

To the Suffolk Committee.

December 7th, 1829.

GENTLEMEN,—The question which you have proposed to me and my colleagues respecting the origin of Freemasonry, I shall answer very briefly. The question I understand as relating to what is essential to Freemasonry at the present time,-to what is peculiar to the system.

The antiquity of Freemasonry must be determined in the same way as the antiquity of any thing else. Suppose we are asked, whether there is reason to believe that war

existed in the time of David? We answer in the affirmative, and refer immediately to the historical evidence. We have a history which has every mark of genuineness and truth, which expressly informs us that there was war in his days; and that he was actively engaged in it. And this fact agrees with the known character of David, and with the circumstances of the Israelitish nation in his days; and it is referred to in many of his Psalms, and in subsequent Jewish writings. This is proof sufficient. Rational belief rests on evidence, and this evidence we have. But suppose any man should assert that David understood the principles of Electricity as they are laid down by modern Philosophers, and that he wrote a book containing those principles: We ask him for his proof. Is there any thing in David's writings, or in any other ancient writings, which shows this? No. Is it probable that he understood Electricity, from the general state of philosophical science in ancient times? The probability is on the other side, especially as we are able to trace the history of Electricity to its origin in modern times.

Again, let a man assert that Solomon made a balloon, and that he frequently rode in it from Jerusalem to Tyre, and sometimes took in Hiram with him. We should put the same question: What evidence is there of this? Does any authentic history assert it; or does the supposition agree with our ideas of Solomon's character, or with the known circumstances of his times? All men will say, there is no proof of the thing asserted: of course it cannot be believed. The above remarks show how I suppose the question respecting the high antiquity of Freemasonry ought to be answered. If men assert that it existed in Solomon's days, and that he and Hiram, King of Tyre, were Freemasons, we inquire for proof. - Is there any historical evidence of the fact? Where is that evidence found? Is it in any ancient book? Let the book be produced. Is it derived from tradition ? Let it be shown where that tradition existed, and how it is traced back to the time of Solomon, or to any period near that. Is it derived from a new revelation? Let it be shown to whom the revelation was made, and what credentials he had of his being authorized to teach it to oth

ers.

If there is any evidence whatever, let it be made to

appear. No reasonable man will ever assert an important fact, with an expectation or desire of having it believed, without producing evidence to prove it. Now I have never seen or heard of any evidence, of any kind or degree, in support of the pretended antiquity of Freemasonry; and I suppose the same is true of all others. What then can we do, consistently with reason and common sense, but to withhold our belief.

As to probable evidence; it would be very proper to inquire, whether it can be reconciled to the acknowledged character of Solomon, and of the twelve Apostles to suppose, that they belonged to a society, established on the principles and practising the rites of Freemasonry. If these principles and rites are what the community at large understand them to be, and what Freemasons themselves understand them to be, an answer to this inquiry would be no very difficult thing.

I am, Gentlemen, with the greatest respect,

Yours, &c

LEONARD WOODS.

PROFESSOR STUART'S REPLY.

ANDOVER, DEC. 22, 1829.

To the Suffolk Committee in Boston, appointed to inquire into the nature, principles and tendency of Freemasonry.

GENTLEMEN,—In answer to your inquiries, respecting any traces of the history of Freemasonry, in ancient times, I reply, that it has not been my lot to find any thing of this nature, in any book that I have ever perused, either in any of the Asiatic or European languages. I take it to be a point conceded by all literary men, that no such traces exist, in any ancient record whatever.

The pretence that Freemasonry was known in the time of Solomon, is refuted by the internal evidence which masonic books themselves contain. For example, they tell us that Hiram Abiff, the Grand Master Mason, was killed by Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum. It happens, unfortunately, however, that these names are formed, (and that by no very skilful master,) from the Latin language,