But,

ledge I have been able to acquire on the subject, see no propriety in celebrating the birth of any ancient patron, whether real or supposed; and, for my own part, I frankly confess, that I have never yet seen one spark of substantial evidence, that either Solomon, or John the Baptist, or John the Evangelist, was a Freemason. I make this declaration as an honest man; and not, by any means, to cast reflections upon those, whose judgment may differ from mine. I am persuaded also, that the annual celebration of John Baptist's nativity has, for years past, been productive of serious evils, by an example of conviviality, not to say intemperance, and an inducement to extravagance, parade and idleness; vices which, more than almost any thing else, have tended to blast the reputation of the order, as a moral and charitable institution. supposing masonry can boast of great antiquity, and of renowned patrons; what then? This simple fact can render it, in its present state, and at the present day, neither the better nor the worse. An institution cannot, in reality, be any the more valuable for being old, nor any the less valuable for being new. I cannot consider Louis XVI. any the better for being able to "boast of a long line of dead ancestors," who had reigned before him, and his claiming the prerogative to wear the crown by "the right of blood;" nor Napoleon Bonaparte any the worse, for having placed himself at the head of an intended dynasty. If antiquity is necessary to prove the value of an institution; then the government under which we live, should be undervalued and cried down, merely because it was founded in the close of the eighteenth century; while we sing the praises of the British monarchy, because it has existed for a thousand years. It is laboring in vain, therefore, and spending strength for nought, to attempt demonstrating the merits of Freemasonry, by proclaiming its antiquity, and celebrating the nativity of a supposed ancient patron. It is true, the pageantry of that day may excite the curiosity of idle brains, and give them an itch to become acquainted with the "mysteries" of the order; but members, who become such from idle curiosity, can afford neither honor nor profit to a charitable and moral institution.

The greatest abuse of Freemasonry, which deserves

notice on this occasion, is, the inclination of some ro MOULD IT INTO A SYSTEM OF RELIGION. All that can be said of masonry, and all that ought to be said of it, in its best and primitive state, is, that it was designed for a moral and charitable institution. Thus far it may go, and no farther. To run it into a system of religion, is an outrage upon the gospel of Christ. A man may as well be a Mahomedan, or a heathen, as adopt any thing for a system of religion, which does not recognize the atonement of Christ. This is the foundation of the Christian's faith, the Christian's hope, and the Christian's salvation. For, "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we can be saved, but by Jesus Christ." Freemasons may be assured, therefore, that they cannot do their institution a greater injury, nor more effectually disgust and wound the feelings of a Christian community, than to frame it into a system of religion. There is not a Christian on earth but must reject and abandon masonry, so far as it sets itself up as a system of religion, upon which its votaries may be induced to build their hopes of forgiveness and acceptance with God. For, there is not a Christian on earth, but must build his hopes of salvation entirely upon the atonement of the blessed Redeemer. It would be just as consistent to erect the constitution of an agricultural society into a system of religion, as to erect the institution of masonry into a system of religion. I should consider it just as proper to give this sentiment, "Religion and agriculture-what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder;" as to give the sentiment which was given at a recent anniversary, "Religion and masonry-what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'

Here then lies the true secret of that opposition to Freemasonry, which is expressed by some of our most serious and conscientious men in society. They have considered masons as erecting a system of religion, in distinction from, and in opposition to, the religion of the gospel. It must be confessed, also, that they have had their reasons for so thinking. They have heard the re

* Given by Rev. George Taft, Rector of St. Paul's Church, Pawtucket, R. I.-ED.

peated declaration, "Every true mason is a Christian; and every Christian is a mason at heart." They have heard it said, in substance, that 'religion is masonry, and that masonry is religion.' They have seen, in Charts and Monitors, prayers and other forms of religious service, in which neither the name, nor the atonement of Christ, is recognized. They have heard the burial service, as now used, which virtually pronounces the deceased in heaven, let his moral character have been what it might. They have seen "the sprig of evergreen," an emblem of the immortality of the soul, cast into the grave by the professed Deist, and even by those who profess to believe that man dies like the beast. They have seen the Bible carried in solemn procession, by the same persons; and, considering their avowed principles and general conduct, have drawn the very natural inference, "This is solemn mockery." Now it must be admitted, that, when serious and thinking men judge of masonry by what they see in these authorized and sanctioned publications, and by the conduct of many masons, who are known to be hostile to the religion of Christ and his apostles, it is not strange that they should fear a general combination to mould the masonic institution into a religious system, opposed to the first principles of the oracles of God. That this has been the design of some leading masons, who have stood high as members of the fraternity, I have not the least reason to doubt. It may be presumed, however, that this is not the design of the majority of the "craft," and that they have received the forms, to which I have alluded, without due consideration. But, so far as any have intended, that masonry shall answer as a substitute for religion, it ought to be considered as the grossest abuse and perversion of its original design; and should, in every laudable way, be reprobated by those who have pledged themselves to preserve “the ancient land-marks of the order."

CIVIL, SOCIAL, AND POLITICAL INFLUENCE OF MASONRY.

Extract from Charles P. Sumner's Letter to the Suffolk Committee. MASONIC engagements, whether they are called oaths, obligations or promises, ought never to be made. They are not sanctioned by law, and are not obligatory. They make it a masonic crime to divulge that which the good of the community requires should not be concealed. The manner in which they are administered, and the matter of them, can hardly fail to excite disrespect for the institution, in the mind of the person initiated; but their effect is neutralized by some charge, or address, which is immediately made by the master, inculcating charity, benevolence and candor towards the whole family of mankind, and a cheerful obedience to the laws and magistrates of the country in which we live. Masonic obligations have no dignity when compared with precepts like these.

It has been said that Washington in his early life was a mason; but he never went further than the third degree: I believe that in his time, higher degrees were not conferred. It is not possible, by reading any book, to know what were the precise terms of Washington's masonic obligations: but any body may know that he never agreed to kill or be killed for all the masonry in the world. It is easy to divine the motives which probably induced him to become a mason. The Old Charge used in his day, when speaking of Civil Magistracy says, "a mason is a peaceable subject to the civil rulers, wherever he resides or works; and is never to be concerned in plots, and conspiracies against the peace and welfare of the nation; nor behave himself undutifully to inferior magistrates.' If a brother should be a rebel against the States, he is not to be countenanced in his rebellion, however he may be pitied as an unhappy man.” *** The books abound with precepts of loyalty and benevolence. It was sentiments like these which induced Washington to become a mason; and a respect for these sentiments would have induced him to withdraw his esteem for the association, had he lived until the autumn of 1826, and

heard of that outrage which evinces that masonry, probably in some of its high and recently invented degrees, can inspire some of its votaries with the grossest misconception of their duty to the magistracy and laws of their country—I say in some of its high degrees, for I am convinced that neither of the three lower degrees irresistibly require that the receiver of them should become the perpetrator of a crime upon himself or upon any one else. I say this from impressions received between twenty and thirty years ago.

It is probable that Morgan has been murdered. If there is any thing in masonic ties that could have induced masons to do this, they ought to disregard such ties as a lion would disregard a net of cobweb. It will be disgraceful to the institution, if its members do not all do their utmost to bring all the abductors of Morgan to legal light and legal punishment. In no better method can they manifest the loyalty and benevolence which they yet continue to declare to be their characteristics.

In our government "the whole people covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole people that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.' Whoever violates those laws cannot be a good citizen-and can he be a good mason?

A masonic obligation, if it requires any breach of the law, is what no man has a right to impose, even on a willing receiver. It is not binding on any one who may be so indiscreet as to take it. It cannot come to good. As it is imposed in some lodges it is illegal and wicked; and in lodges, where it is the least reprehensible, it goes. to swell the amount of those idle words which we must one day regret.

The influence of masonry is not favorable to domestic happiness. It impairs a man's fondness for the pleasures, which, if he does his duty, he may justly expect to find at home. I once had occasion to see a man after ten o'clock in the evening. I called at his house; upon knocking at the door, I heard the words-walk in, uttered by a faint voice. I entered the room which served its tenants for a parlor and a kitchen. It was enlightened by a glimmering lamp. His wife was sitting in a rocking chair drawn to the hearth, on which was a small fire