and not from the Hebrew, to which they bear not the slightest resemblance. All Hebrew names are significant and have a Hebrew shape; and it requires but a moderate share of skill, to detect gross imposture in this pretended history of Hiram Abiff.

The same is manifestly the case, in regard to a large class of names, which are given out by masonic books as very ancient; e. g. Buh, Giblimites, Touhumith, Lisha, Jaobert, Tito, Harrodim, Juha, (Animani, which the books say means, I am that I am,) Jubilum, Akirop, Sidach, Solo, and many others. If the meaning of masonic books be, what it seems to be, that these have come down from the days and the language of Solomon, it is gross imposture. These names would for the most part, be as good Hebrew, as Abracadabra is English.

If what the books state, also, about the use of such names as Jah, Jevah, Jovah, Shaddai, Adonai, be true, (names of the adorable Godhead, in the Hebrew language, and introduced it would seem, by some masons who had a smattering of the Hebrew language;) if it be true that these names are used in the connexion and manner in which the books of masons declare them to be, then it is certain that the name of God is profanely used. And what can I say of the Animani, which is pretended to mean, I am that I am? I confess, that I cannot help shuddering at the manner in which this is stated to be used, in books published by members of the masonic fraternity. Whether the accounts, however, from which I take this, are true, is of course more than I am able to vouch for. It is only on the supposition that they are so, that my remarks can have any bearing on the subject of

masonry.

If these accounts are true, then it is time that every man in our community should know it. That any class of men among us should be encouraged to expect protection in all cases, "murder and treason not excepted," is what institutions like ours can never sanction; and the eyes of all should be opened wide in relation to this

matter.

If these accounts are not true, the masons owe it to themselves, and to the world, to vindicate themselves from such charges. Especially is this the case, inasmuch

as these charges are made by men of good standing, of unimpeachable integrity and veracity, and who have a personal acquaintance with all the secrets of masonry. For my part, I shall be exceedingly glad to see these charges refuted; as it would greatly relieve my mind in regard to many estimable men, belonging to the masonic order. But I see no way to get rid of the force of the testimony in question, until a counter-statement is made, which is worthy of credibility.

For a long time, I neither knew nor cared much about this subject. But recent attention to it, has filled me with astonishment; and as to some things contained in it, with horror. The trifling with oaths, and with the awful names of the ever blessed God, is a feature I cannot contemplate but with deep distress.

I am, Gentlemen,

Your friend and obedient servant,

MOSES STUART.

BOSTON, Nov. 4, 1829.

To the President and Professors of Harvard University.

GENTLEMEN,-At a numerous meeting of the citizens of Boston and vicinity, the undersigned were appointed a committee to inquire into the origin, nature, and principles of Freemasonry.

In performing the duties assigned them, they find the Masonic Institution to claim an origin of much greater antiquity than is supported by any well authenticated history that the undersigned have yet been able to meet with. They have discovered no book on Freemasonry written prior to 1723. Since that period to the present, the future historian will have ample materials to prove the existence of the institution. The masonic writers, which the committee have yet seen on the antiquity of Freemasonry, appear to rely on tradition. But tradition is not asked for. It would seem natural to expect, that a society, claiming for its members, the worthy, the learned, and the great, in all ages and countries, should have, at least, something more to be relied on, to prove its very existence, than vague tradition.

The disclosures which have been made, and the con

sequent growing excitement, that has arisen in our country on this subject, appear to justify a fearless and thorough investigation. Truth and impartiality are alone sought for. It has occurred to the undersigned, that the course most likely to give satisfaction to the public, in the present inquiry, was to present the historical question, as to the origin of Freemasonry, to the decision of high minded and honorable gentlemen of profound learning and research. Men above suspicion, and in possession of the most ancient and extensive libraries in this country. The special object of this application is, respectfully to request an answer to the following historical question, viz.

Is there any known history, to justify the belief, that Speculative, or Freemasonry, had existence prior to the last century?

The expression of your sentiments, in writing, on the foregoing question, will be gratefully acknowledged by Your most obedient servants,

THE COMMITTEE.

MR. QUINCY'S REPLY.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY,

CAMBRIDGE, Dec. 5, 1829.

19. }

To the Gentlemen of the Suffolk Committee.

"Is there

GENTLEMEN, —I have received and laid before the Faculty of Harvard University, your letter, requesting an expression of their sentiments on the question any known history to justify the belief, that Speculative, or Freemasonry, had existence prior to the last century. In reply, I have the honor, by request of the Faculty, to state that they have no knowledge of any such history. On inquiry of the Librarian of the University, and on examining the catalogue of books, no such has been found. The subject is one, however, on which the members of the Faculty profess to have no precise information, it having never before been presented to them as an object of interest and inquiry.

Should any books in the College Library be found to

be important, for your purposes, in the course of your
investigation, they will, without doubt, on application, be
placed at the command of any person engaged under
your authority in the research you have instituted.
Very respectfully, Gentlemen,

I am your obedient servant,
JOSIAH QUINCY,

President of Harvard University.

THE LAWFULNESS OF FREEMASONRY AS A SECRET

INSTITUTION.

Extract from "A Reply of the Genesee Consociation to the letter of the Rev; Mr. Emerson, of Weathersfield, Conn, addressed to them on the subject of their resolution relative to masonic ministers, and masonic candidates for the ministry.”*

WE feel prepared to take what some may consider high ground, that secret societies are unlawful. We do not mean to assert it as a fact, that we have any special statutes which prohibit them-but we mean that such an institution as yours is highly dangerous in its tendency to the best interests of society. What we have to state here may be offensive to some of your brethren, but we hope not to yourself. We say therefore that, towards masons we indulge no hostile feelings. If we give of fence to any, it is from an imperious sense of duty-not from personal resentment.

We here remark again that we are unable to perceive how we can discuss this question with you and come to the point in hand, which is to vindicate the propriety of our resolution, without freely examining the nature of your institution, which now stands all unguarded by the Tyler's sword.

We do not regard your institution with any friendly

* Their resolution was as follows,-" Resolved, That the Consociation will neither license, ordain, or install, those who sustain any connexion with the institution of masonry, or who will not disapprove and renounce it; nor will we give letters of recommendation in favor of such persons to preach in any of the churches in our connexion."

feeling. We wish it prostrated to the ground, never to rise again. We are not in favor, as you are, of having its "implements," &c. laid up in the choicest of cabinets,—nor of having the least vestige of it left to her "vigorous successors, -but we wish it to come to a complete and everlasting end. You have something to say in favor of the lawfulness of secret societies.—In page 9th, you say, that "of their intrinsic lawfulness, I have no doubt," and that "for any government to forbid them, would in my view, be rank tyranny."

1. We oppose this opinion, first, by a view of some circumstances of the case. In this country, the people, who are always the best judges of their own interest, govern-and if they are disposed to prohibit by law, the existence of secret societies, there is no tyranny in the case; for it is absurd to suppose that the people, in the free exercise of their prerogatives, will oppress themselves. Therefore should it ever become the popular opinion, that secret societies ought not to exist, the omission to prohibit them by law would be "rank tyranny," because this omission would give indulgence to the few without an express right, to trample on the privileges of the many. As the case now is, and has been, for many years in our country, the masonic institution is an "imperium in imperio." The prerogatives which it has assumed are unchartered It has grown up by mere indulgence. Society at large should never be exposed, to be practised upon by a few sons of light." Masonry has been the instrument in the hands of bad men, of piratical depredations on the people. If the people have foes, it is right that they should see them and their weapons, and understand their plans-that they may have an equal chance for their lives. Masonry is such an instrument as we have, in part, described it; and there are many in whose hands it has been intrusted, who were not dull in apprehending for what purpose the instrument is made.

2. Another argument against the "intrinsic lawfulness" of this secret society is the great facility which it affords for secret transactions of an immoral character. This forms a solid objection to it which can never be passed over. These transactions which are to be kept secret under the sanction of the severest penalties, are a