to admit that there are exceptions. But I have never known a church member, who gave decisive evidence of piety, who would not spontaneously abandon the lodge, during a revival of religion. Neither have I ever known a professor of religion, however apparently engaged before, but what, in one way or another, gave decisive evidence of religious declension, immediately after joining the masonic institution. I can also recollect of several instances, in which young men had appeared very seriously concerned for the soul and the things of eternity; but who, on being initiated into the mysteries of masonry, immediately banished all serious impressions, and, from that day forward, appeared perfectly careless and secure. I am also constrained to think, that no professor of religion ever found himself improved in moral feeling, in consequence of attending a communication of the lodge or that he scarcely ever went away, in consequence, with one profitable serious reflection, unless with this, that he had worse than thrown away his precious time, and would better stay away in future. Permit me, also, to ask you, dear brother, (and I wish to do it most tenderly and affectionately,) if you have felt in your heart, generally, that glow of religious warmth, since, as before you became a member of the masonic institution? Have you been as much disposed to attend religious meetings since, as before; or to take a part in those religious meetings, as you frequently did, four or five years ago? Permit me again to ask, if you feel like going from your closet to the lodge, or from the lodge to your closet? Or, if you do, is it with that freedom and holy fervor, which you believe you have felt in years past? These are plain and significant questions; and I doubt not you will answer them to yourself, in the fear of God, and with a reference to the judgment day. You add, “I am told that Royal Arch masonry has much to do with a Saviour, while he is only darkly prefigured in the three first." Here, I am sure, you are laboring under a sad mistake. I wish to know wherein the Saviour is even darkly prefigured, in any part of the three first degrees. Is it in the mock representation of death and the resurrection? It must be here, if any where; but, for my own part, I should as soon and as seriously think of looking for the Saviour in one of Shakespear's tragedies. It cannot be. This ceremony is so contrived, that it may be construed to please the Christian, Jew, Deist, Mahomedan, and Pagan idolater.Would these last think of looking for the Saviour here? I have been informed, that a Jew was, for a considerable time, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Rhode Island. This same Jew, if I mistake not, was actively engaged in forming the General Grand Chapter of the United States. Now, would this Jew, do you imagine, consider Royal Arch masonry as having much to do with the Saviour; or that Jesus of Nazareth was even "darkly prefigured" in the third degree? But, supposing your idea to be correct; what is the need of having the Saviour "darkly prefigured," when "the true light" respecting him, has now shone for more than eighteen hundred years? Is there any need of going into the lodge-room to observe what God, in his word and providence, has made so plain? I deny, however, that Royal Arch masonry has any thing to do with the Saviour, except to degrade and rob him of his glory; and this would please the Jew, as well as the Deist. In the Mark Master's degree, those passages of scripture,* which, in the Bible are applied exclusively to Christ, as the chief corner stone of his church, masons apply exclusively to a literal stone, which in this degree, is "rejected by the builders" and thrown away among "the rubbish ;" but in the Most Excellent Master's degree, is found again, and becomes the key of the arch, or "the head of the corner." Now what does this mean? Is it to exalt or to degrade, the Son of God? Who shall tell us the Jew, or the Deist? Let the * The passages of scripture here cited, are the following:-Ps. cxviii. 22. The stone which the builders refused, is become the head-stone of the corner. Matth. xxi. 42.-Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, is become the head of the corner? Mark xii. 10.-And have ye not read this scripture, The stone which the builders rejected, is become the head of the corner? Luke xx. 17.-What is this, then, that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, is become the head of the corner? Acts iv. 11.-This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.-[See Webb's Monitor, 1816, p. 78.] Christian speak, and his soul must recoil within him! He will say, if he says the truth, "This is, indeed, my God and my Saviour, degraded to a literal stone, mocked, and cast away, despised and rejected of men!!" "Omy soul, come thou no more within their secrets; unto their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united !" In the Royal Arch degree, the name of the Saviour is not mentioned; but the titles and attributes of the great and terrible GOD, are used with the most shocking familiarity; and JEHOVAH is literally personified, while the passage relating to the "burning bush" is cited in full.* In the "Order of High Priest," which properly belongs to Royal Arch masonry, Christ is again robbed of his honor; and passages which apply to him, and to no other being in the universe, are addressed to a mortal worm of the dust. What is said of Melchisedec, in the New Testament, as representing the eternal Priesthood of the Saviour, mason's address to the High Priest of a Royal Arch Chapter! This degree was doubtless contrived by Weishaupt, a most subtle adept, and was intended and calculated to deceive, "if it were possible, the very elect." Of this, however, I shall say more hereafter.-In like manner, are the agonies of Christ in the garden turned into mockery, in the order of Knights Templars. Here, the "bitter cup" is prepared for the candidate to drink, when he receives his obligation. Here is represented "the place of a skull," literally indeed, because the skull is the cup from which the novitiate receives his libation. In allusion to the bitter cup, the scene of Christ's agony in the garden is rehearsed,§ (does not your soul recoil?) particularly that passage, in which he repeatedly and earnestly prays, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." -“Father, if this cup may not pass from me, except I drink it, thy will be done."!!! allusion to the skull, it is read,§ "And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a SKULL, they gave him vinegar to drink, MINGLED WITH GALL: and when he had tasted thereof, he would * Freemason's Monitor, 1816, p. 136. In not drink."!!! Now, is it difficult here to see the haggard features of Illuminism? Professor Robison, who had every facility to learn, declares,* that this degree was formed in an illuminated lodge at Lyons, which, at that time, "stood at the head of French Freemasonry." It seems also, from other authentic accounts, which I have seen of the history of this order, that those who contrived it, to render the deception complete, seized, as a kind of model, the chivalry of the dark ages, and pretended to trace the degree back, as Webb does, to the eleventh century. We may, then, consider it as established beyond a reasonable doubt, that the "Order of Knights Templars" is the legitimate offspring of French illumin ism. ON THE OATHS AND OBLIGATIONS OF MASONRY. An abridgment of Rev. Mr. Jones's Letters. Ir is my intention in the present letter, to notice some things in the OATHS or OBLIGATIONS of masonry, which are objectionable, and, in my opinion, destroying their binding nature, as to perpetual secrecy. Before I proceed, however, it may be suitable to remark, it is my purpose not to introduce any thing as belonging to these obligations, except what was actually taught me as such while a regular member of the institution. If any individual shall question my ability to present the very form so far as I may need to do it, I would observe, for the satisfaction of such, that I should hold myself in readiness, if required, to submit the question to disinterested judges, and to abide their decision. It was not my intention, and I should not have thought it expedient now to publish any part of these Oaths, in the precise words in which they were taught to me, were it not for the fact, * Proofs of Conspiracy, p. 44. † See Webb's Observations on the Orders of Knights Templars, and Knights of Malta."-Freemason's Monitor, 1816, p. 220. which has very much surprised me of late; that many of the fraternity, as I am credibly informed, are positively denying the substantial correctness of them, as they stand in Morgan's Illustrations, thereby, as it must be considered, implicating me with the gross charge of falsehood. The first thing to be noticed as objectionable in these obligations, is the extraordinary mock solemnity, profanity, &c. of their introduction, viz.: “ I, A. B. of my own free will and accord, in presence of Almighty God, and this Right Worshipful Lodge, erected to God and dedicated to the Order of the holy St. John; do hereby, and hereon, most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear." All three of the first obligations, have precisely this introduction, according to my earliest instructions; and what, let me ask, is there in them, or in the other parts of masonry, which can demand, or justify this pretended, solemn formality? As I know of no necessity for this, nor any thing which can be reasonably urged in its justification, I have no hesitation in declaring my opinion fully, that it is an absolute violation of the third Commandment, in twice taking the name of the Lord in vain ; and what an unqualified violation it is, also, of the injunction of holy writ, to swear not at all." And what can it be, but a most daring insult, in the face of the Most High, for a body of men, who, with but very few if any exceptions, generally, are not those, who fear God and work righteousness, to set themselves up, as it were, by his side, clothed with such extraordinary, self-created, selfexalted titles; and what is it but an impious mockery of God, to declare such lodges, in his awful presence, Erected to God, and dedicated to the order of the holy St. John?" Sure, if these lodges, generally, have been erected to any god, and are acknowledged by him, as such, it must have been to some other than the God of heaven. I wish to be understood, as speaking exclusively of the wickedness of these oaths, in distinction from the character of those who may be still unconsciously giving their sanction to such wickedness. Another clause which I shall notice at this time, is the same in substance in both the second and third degrees as follows: "Ifurthermore promise and swear, that I will answer and obey, all due signs and summons, given, sent, |