not bound to keep, except when he may prefer keeping them also.

Another objection to this clause, is, that it must sometimes expose those who take it, to the necessity of swearing falsely, without any possible way of escape. For instance, in such a case as has already been supposed, where one party is entirely innocent of the secret crime; or, in such a case as that of the Morgan affair, where several may have been combined in the same dark and evil designs, all of which was previously committed to each other, as the secrets of a master mason: Now, if a part of these shall be detected, or shall recant from any further share in such iniquity, and shall be duly summoned as witnesses, and sworn to tell the whole truth in the case, against the others, they cannot proceed to do it, without violating their masonic obligation; then to be silent, or keep sacred such an oath, there is no possible alternative, but to violate their judicial oath, and thus betray their country; and those who have read the testimony under oath, of masonic witnesses, who had been engaged in the conspiracy against Morgan, have seen the dilemma of masons, thus situated, and where there seemed to be the most unequivocal presumption, that they considered it a less evil to violate their judicial, rather than their masonic oath, when one only could be kept sacred.

But will some reply to these objections, that there is no such meaning in the clause, and it was never expected, from it, that a brother would be bound to keep wickedness a secret, when the public good requires it to be exposed? Then, what means this particular exception of only two crimes, and these not excepted unless it be the choice of the persons thus bound? Were it not for this particular exception of MURDER AND TREASON, only, it might have been rational, according to the common usage of language, to draw this inference from it that the secrets of masons should be most sacredly kept, in all lawful cases, only; but as the clause now stands, it is impossible to draw from it so favorable an inference, without a gross perversion of language. Will it be said, again, that the interpretation of this oath is always given to the candidate before he receives it, so far as the assurance that it contains nothing which is repugnant to his duty, either to his

country or his God, and therefore, it cannot mean to bind any one to keep secret, the crimes of wicked masons? It is not pretended, but all well meaning masons have so received and considered it: but, let it be remembered, that the oath, itself, and the mistaken interpretation of it by the master of the lodge, are no more necessarily connected together, than the Bible is, with the false interpretations which are many times given it.

Again, it might be said, that the Bible itself, in the principles of masonry, is said to be the "rule and guide of the faith and practice of every mason, therefore, all the other parts of masonic principles, must be interpreted according to the principles of that sacred volume. This is certainly plausible, were we to admit the antiquity and divine origin of the institution, which have been confidently and boastingly pretended by many. But let it be remembered, that masonry was never founded on the word of God; since it is so abundantly evident that, in a gospel land, the Bible has rather been profanely taken and placed upon masonry, as a cloak of hypocrisy, which alone could sustain the institution, in such a land as this; while the Koran, only, in a Mahometan land, could answer the same purpose. Thus it may be seen, that the Bible, and the oaths of masonry, have no connexion with each other, and the latter are not, necessarily, explained by the former. What impartial observer then, cannot see the wickedness of such a clause, in the masonic oaths, however innocently they may be explained, and however innocent the intention of masons most generally, as I cheerfully grant, in their unsuspectingly taking upon themselves, so wicked an obligation.

The next clause which remains to be examined in the obligations of masonry belongs to that of the third degree, and though it binds a master mason to be chaste in his outward conduct, in some cases which are there specified, it seems, by an irresistible inference, to allow unchastity in all other cases, not particularly specified. I shall be excused from repeating this clause in the language in which I learnt it, though I would say, there is scarcely the least difference in the phraseology of it, from the manner in which Morgan has expressed it in his disclosures. The substance of this clause is simply this; it binds those who

take it, to keep the seventh commandment inviolate, so far as may relate to the female department of a brother master mason's family; provided however, they shall know, at the time, that such females do belong to such a family; or sustain such a relation, to a master mason.

It is true, that the clause does not enjoin a violation of the seventh commandment in other cases not specified, but certainly it contains the allowance of it, or else there is no meaning in the obligated restriction of chastity to a few specified cases. What else can we infer from this limiting of a master mason's chastity, to a few particular cases, but that his masonic obligation is designed to leave him the fullest liberty to trample on the seventh commandment in any other case, which it might be desirable? And even if he shall set at nought this commandment, in any of the cases where he is required to keep it in the obligation, when he is not aware, that his unchastity or lewdness is thus connected with a master mason's family, his obligation in that respect is not to be considered violated. It may give us a more clear and definite view of what is enjoined, and what is allowed in the clause here examined, if we bring forward some of the other commandments, under the same restrictions and indulgences as parallel cases. How would obligations like the following appear, if imposed upon members of the fraternity-that they will not take the name of the Lord in vain, in presence of any of a brother master mason's family, "knowing them to be such," or will not murder one of them, nor steal from them, nor bear false witness against them, &c., "knowing them to be such!" What masons of moral principles, let me ask, could endure with obligations like these, which contain the allowance of a violation of the several commandments named? And yet, they are precisely like the one which I have been reprobating, as still held in the fellowship of the lodges.

Another objection to the masonic obligations, is, that they are frequently given to bind men to the performance of things, of which, at the time, they are left in profound ignorance. It has been no uncommon thing with the unskilful master of the lodge, not being able to repeat the whole of the oath, when called to administer it to the candidate, to make up his deficiency with a concluding and all

comprehending clause, prepared for such an emergency, to this amount; that if any part of such oath has been omitted in the administration, the candidate must swear that he will hold himself bound by it, as soon as he may be informed what it is. Thus, if nine tenths of it are omitted, he must swear to be bound by the whole, as soon as he may hear it. Can such a manner of administering and receiving oaths be justified? Is it not literally, if I might use the phrase, a swearing at random? If such be not a profane trifling with the solemnity of oaths, it seems difficult to conceive, what would be called profanity.

The next and last part of the obligations, which I think of noticing at present, is the penalties which are attached to their violation. Though I recollect that the penalty of the oath of the Royal Arch degree, is such as to forfeit life, by having the upper part of the skull struck off, I shall confine myself to those of the first three degrees, because these are most familiar to me, and sufficient for my purpose. The first penalty is, having the "throat cut from ear to ear," the " tongue torn out by the roots," &c. The second, having the "left breast torn open,' the "heart taken from thence and thrown over," the "left shoulder, to become a prey to the beasts of the field, or the vultures of the air;" and the third, I will write out in full, as it was taught me, viz. "All this, I most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, with a fixed and steady resolution to keep and perform the same, without any equivocation, mental reservation, or self evasion of mind in me whatever; binding myself under the no less penalty, than having my body severed in twain, my bowels torn from thence, and burnt to ashes, those ashes scattered to the four winds of heaven; my body severed in quarters, those quarters placed on the four cardinal points of the compass, with my head in the centre, never again to be reunited until the general resurrection or the judgment."

Passing by the gross and heathenish abominations which are so abundant here: I shall attend in this discussion, to but one particular point, which is this: these penalties are at variance with the sixth commandment of the decalogue, " "Thou shalt not kill." None will presume to say, that either of those penalties could be inflicted, without its producing instant death. So the

candidate is made to pledge to the lodge, or institution of Freemasonry, as a surety, that he will safely keep its secrets, not his money, nor his sacred honor; but his very life; as though that was his own property, and he had an undisputed right to give it into the hands of assassins when he pleased. This would be no less than suicide, or a positive violation of the sixth commandment. Certainly, a man has no more right to forfeit his own life, as a penalty for the violation of his oath, than that of his wife, child or friend. Then is it not great wickedness to do it, in violation of a plain command of God, as it is done in each of the penalties which have been mentioned?

Should it be said, that in these penalties, it is only meant that the candidate should express his strong determination not to suffer the secrets of masonry to be extorted from him, even should ruffians put him to death in any form whatever, it might be answered that the expression of these penalties, disproves such an explanation; for the penalty of death, we see, is not attached to that clause of keeping the secrets only, but to every clause, thus, "All this, I most solemnly," &c. "binding myself under the no less penalty," &c. so that it cannot mean, that the penalty is only to be suffered from ruffians, when the secrets would otherwise be extorted.

Although these penalties have so long been explained as not allowing the craft to execute them, thereby murdering the mason who may knowingly and purposely violate the obligation; and though it has been so common for masons to believe, that no such wickedness was intended, or thought of, in the origin of these penalties, it must certainly be doing violence to our language, so to understand them, from the words in which they are expressed. It has been said, that masonry knows of "no penalties worse than expulsion." Then let me ask, why are these horrid things, in every obligation, called penalties? Are they to be understood as a mere, solemn, unmeaning exclamation, showing the strong determination of the candidate to keep the obligation, like the profane and thoughtless character, who sometimes says, he will die, if his assertion be not true, or if he shall not fulfil his word? Considering that the candidate at the time of taking this oath and penalty upon him, is on his knees;