which are now done away, and of course, that this passage must now be as much out of date as those ceremonies. But the thoughtful and candid will not be thus easily convinced, that the moral law of God, or his law respecting the wickedness of oaths, has been changed or done away with the ceremonies of the Jewish Church.

ON THE VALIDITY OF MASONIC OATHS.

Extract from an Address delivered at Lyons, N. Y. by Miron Holley, Esq. FREEMASONRY administers oaths-are these oaths binding? Assuredly not. They are promissory. A promissory oath is the calling upon God to take notice of what is promised, and of invoking his vengeance, by the promiser upon himself, if it is not performed.

Promissory oaths are not binding, where false or erroneous representations and inducements are held out to those who take them. The representation made to the brethren before admission, that "the oath will effect neither their religion nor their politics," is of this character; and so are all the inducements arising from the unfounded pretensions of Freemasonry, heretofore examined

To take an oath is a solemn and deliberate act of the mind. Understanding is essential to its obligation; on which account oaths impose no obligation upon idiots, lunatics, madmen, or young children; they not having sufficient knowledge, either of the nature of the things promised, or of the penalties of non-performance and both of these sorts of knowledge are requisite. There can be no moral obligation, in any case, without knowledge. The obligation of obedience to God himself, is no more than co-extensive with our knowledge of his laws; and in respect to the nature of the promises and penalties, in the oaths of Freemasonry, all the persons before alluded to as being free from the obligation of oaths, for the want of understanding, have as much knowledge, as the wisest of the brethren had, before the oaths were taken.

To render a promissory oath obligatory, it is necessary, that both the authority administering it, and the performance of the promise it contains, should be lawful; reference being had in this case, not merely to the enactments of the civil government, but also to the law of a good conscience.

The right to administer oaths, if not wholly denied by religion, is one of the prerogatives of the sovereign power, a right which cannot be enjoyed concurrently, by the government and its subjects. Every man would regard it as both wrong and ridiculous for any individual to pretend to a natural right of administering oaths, in such form, with such penalties, and for such purposes as he might choose to dictate; and such pretension would not be made valid by his finding any man or number of men, who would consent to take them. Even if the form, penalties, and purposes were all good, this would be incontrovertible. The right of administering oaths, does not exist anterior to the establishment of government, nor independently of it. Wherever it exists, it is a conventional right, of that description too, which may be denominated resulting; that is, a right, springing from the necessities of government, after its organization, and founded on the utility of its exercise. It never exists, in individuals or associations of men; except when conferred upon them by government. There is no rightful government, in this country, but religion, or the laws regularly adopted under our established constitution. But neither of these has conferred upon Freemasonry the right to administer oaths. Would it not be a violation of every good man's conscience, as well as a scandalous breach of his allegiance to our government, for him to administer an oath among us, under the pretence of authority conferred upon him by the Great Mogul? It is equally so, under the pretence of authority conferred by Freemasonry-a government more foreign from ours, and more barbarous than Turkey. This is a kind of unlawfulness, which shows there is no obligation imposed upon the conscience, by masonic oaths.

It is a gross immorality to administer such oaths on other grounds, and therefore a man is not bound by them. The master of a lodge, without any shadow of authority,

in the midst of the most degrading mummery, calls upon a candidate, in a state of indecent nakedness, with a bandage round his eyes, in order that he may have no more of natural, than he has of moral light, solemnly and sincerely to promise and swear, as in the presence of Him, in whose sight the angels are chargeable with folly, to do -he knows not what-under penalties the most revolting and inhuman. Is not such a scene calculated most injuriously to lessen the sanctity of all oaths? Must not the frequent repetition of it, amazingly diminish the value of that solemn form of ascertaining truth, by our constituted authorities, in relation to all our dearest rights? Recollect there are near 100,000 Freemasons in the United States, of whom many have taken more than forty degrees, in each of which an oath has been administered. Did not the Father of his country allude to these proceedings of Freemasonry, in his farewell address, when he emphatically asked, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?"

The performance of a promise to calumniate, to conceal a criminal action, or to assassinate, is always unlawful, and is therefore not binding; because the promiser in these cases, is always under a prior obligation to the contrary. From such prior obligation what shall discharge him? His promise? His 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 of such promises lies in making them, not in breaking them. Whoever makes them is already bound to break them. The masonic oaths do not require all those unlawful acts, except upon certain conditions. Where the condition exists, there the oaths are imperative. But the acts are unlawful under all possible conditions, and therefore the oaths are not obligatory.

Besides, the penalty of every masonic oath, is the forfeiture of life, to be taken in the most impious and bloody manner. No man has a right to subject himself to such a penalty. His prior obligations to God and his country forbid it. The penalty is unlawful, and therefore the oath not obligatory.

**

Herod's promissory oath to his daughter in-law, "that he would give her whatsoever she asked, even to the half of his kingdom," when she asked the head of John the Baptist, imposed no obligation upon Herod to give it, because it was unlawful.

Christianity interposes other objections to the lawfulness of masonic oaths. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." 'I say unto you, swear not at all." On these authorities many Christians wholly refuse to take judicial oaths. They have universally, and always, condemned all others. Whatever is against the command of Christ is sinful. All sins must be renounced even the most favorite.

An oath can never bind a man to do what is morally wrong. If it is a bond of duty, let us consider what is the authority of duty. It is the command of God or general utility; opposition to which, is the very definition of wrong. It would be both preposterous and impious, deliberately to call upon God to take notice of what was in opposition to his command. In such case, to take an oath, would actually involve the guilt of perjury.

A good man always acts under a conviction of the presence of God, and in the fullest expectation of his righteous retributions; that is, under all the sanctions of an oath. And there could be no stronger attestation to the excellence of Doctor Johnson's moral character than that, which is involved in the declaration of one of his associates, that in common conversation, he always talked like a man under oath. What would such a man do, supposing he had taken the oaths of Freemasonry ? Could he conceal what he knew to be criminal? Could he derange the business, oppose the interests, or traduce the character of a brother for any cause? He plainly could not; because, he would be under all the obligations imposed by an oath, not to do so, prior to his taking the masonic oaths; that is, all the obligations arising from the command of God, or general utility.

In reality, the use of an oath is, to bring freshly to the mind of him, who takes it, the obligations of duty, which actually would rest upon him, without it. It does not increase those obligations in the least degree. Do not the obligations of duty, then, as with the force of an oath, require all good men to renounce Freemasonry? If, in

the honest convictions of their minds, Freemasonry is wrong, in its secrecy, in its oaths, in its injunctions, or in its effects and consequences, they assuredly do.

VINDICATION OF FREEDOM FROM MASONIC OATHS.

Extract from the Anti-Masonic Review.

What sort of religion have you, thus to expose the mysteries of ancient Freemasonry, contrary to your solemn oath? A fearful question, to which we solemnly reply.

We justify ourselves in three several positions, either of them sufficient alone for our defence; and altogether rendering our defence impregnable.

In the first position, we say, that ancient Freemasonry, to which we have sworn fearful secresy, had never an existence. The word Freemasonry, and the thing signified by that word, is not ancient, but modern; is not three thousand years old, nor three hundred, nor the half of three hundred. We took the oath with assurances, and with the belief, too, that ancient Freemasonry meant an institution organized by Zerubbabel, and patronized by St. John, and by the apostles of our Lord. As such we have sworn to it allegiance; and if ever we meet with such an insitution, or any fraction of it, whether on the plains of the Scioto, or of the Genesee, whether on the Green, or the Alleghany mountains, we will hail its signs, and conceal its mysteries, so far as they may be intrusted to us, with the most praiseworthy fidelity.

But a certain institution pretending to come from under the hand of Solomon in the land of Judea, we now know to have come from worthless names in the island of Great Britain; not three thousand years ago, but in the last century. Its secrets and signs we do not feel bound to hail, even in a lodge room. And the oath which we honestly took in favor of king Solomon's institution, shall not, with our consent, be converted into an obligation of fidelity to any lie.

Is it not provoking beyond sufferance, that we should be ensnared in early life, to take a secret oath of fidelity