cover the contents of such oath, to be contrary to the condition to repeat it after the master, why is he not just as much at liberty to be disentangled from it as before.

We may be told, that such objections, if ever made, should be made at the time; or before repeating the oath from the lips of the master; and that, if on hearing the oath it should be objectionable to the candidate, he need not have taken it. But let all fairly understand this matter, and that the candidate has no reasonable opportunity to examine the oath before taken, for he is not permitted to know one syllable of its contents, nor, that there is any oath to be taken, on joining the institution, if possible to keep him ignorant of it; until he is caused to kneel at "the altar, neither naked nor clothed, barefoot nor shod, hood-winked, with a cable tow," or rope, "about" his

er.

neck," and told that he is "now about to take the solemn oaths or obligation of an Entered Apprentice," &c. and then he can know nothing of it any faster, than a few words of it are said over for him to repeat after the Master, sentence after sentence, or half sentence, or word at a time, until it is finished, like the stupid school boy, who knows not one word of his lesson, but repeats it as he is commanded, word for word, at the lips of the teachHow little then, could be learnt, or understood, of a long oath taken in this manner, amid so much, at such a season, that is calculated to distract the thoughts. If ever it is to be fairly examined and tried by the scale of moral rectitude, it must be done after it is taken, when a person may see and examine it, as other things are tried, to be approved or condemned. How unreasonable then, that he should be required to judge of it, and condemn it at such a critical and unexpected moment, or be forever debarred the privilege afterwards. Besides considering the incapacity of the candidate of judging of the moral character of such oaths, at the time of taking them, his condition is such as every one may see, as will not allow of his usurping authority, to judge, and condemn them, even if his mind could be then sufficiently enlightened. Before the first step is taken towards the institution, he must promise upon his honor, before a number of the fraternity, that he will conform to all their customs and requirements in taking the dégrée, as all others have done,

on becoming masons. Then he hears and learns many things, of the secret forms of initiation, before he comes to the oath, when circumstanced as I have mentioned, and knowing that there is no possible way of escape, if he should protest against the oath, or any part of it, and refuse to take it, he cannot feel, while taking it, as though he was acting for himself, but that he has blindly and voluntarily placed himself in a condition where he must inevitably comply with the usages of the lodges, and though he should, at the time, before finishing the oath, perceive that there was more matter proposed to him in it, which appeared wrong to be taken, how can he do otherwise, having gone so far, than finish it, hoping to make the best of it afterwards. Thus, when he shall have an opportunity to examine it for himself separate from the specious interpretations which are given it, by those who have themselves taken it upon trust, and finds it contains things contrary to the condition on which he took it, what can be plainer, than that he is not bound by it, according to the previous agreement? If I make a promise to a stranger, that I will grant his request, before he makes it known to me, provided, that it is both lawful and reasonable, shall I be holden to fulfil such a promise, and grant the request, though when declared, I find it both unlawful and unreasonable?

Though it appears, that none, having commenced the taking of these oaths in this their blind and helpless condition, make their escape without having the whole of them imposed upon them, it is confidently believed, that no men of moral principles would have been caught there, could they have known positively, before making up their minds to unite with the fraternity, that in going forward, they must take upon themselves oaths of precisely such a moral character as those of masonry.

The last reason which I now think of assigning to show that the masonic oaths are without validity, is, that the word of God absolutely condemns them, and requires them to be repented of, and put away. Separate from the general prohibitions concerning the taking of oaths in the scriptures, some of which have already been briefly noticed, I shall now produce a passage, which if I mistake not, seems given to settle this question beyond any further

dispute, in the minds of all who shall carefully and truly compare it with the oaths of masonry. The passage is in Leviticus, 5th chap. 4th and 5th verses. If a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips, to do evil, or to do good, whatever it be, that a man shall pronounce with an oath and it be HID from him, when he knoweth of it, then shall he be guilty in one of these. And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess, that he hath sinned in that thing." Surely nothing could have been written on the subject of oaths, more appropriate to the oaths of masonry than this passage of scripture; and nothing could more expressly condemn them, and declare their invalidity. And truly it seems as though the passage could not be applied to any other kind of oaths which are at present in use among men; and it is believed, that the masonic, are the only oaths which are taken, the contents of which are "hid from" the receiver, and the only oaths, to my knowledge, except such as are openly and grossly profane, which a man takes, “pronouncing with his lips," as mentioned in this passage. Many men among us have been called, to take hundreds of solemn oaths, but not one of them was pronounced at the time by the receiver, with his lips, except in masonry Where else then could this passage be applied, but to the oaths of this institution? It certainly seems to set the matter beyond all reasonable dispute between masons and anti-masons, as it goes farther than any thing, for which the latter have ever contended, since it does not condemn the oath that is unwittingly taken, merely because of the evil which it may contain, but condemns it because it is so taken; whether it be evil or good; “whatever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath," in that manner. Is not the requisition in this scripture so plain that a child might understand it, that when an individual has thus sworn "to do evil or to do good," when it was thus "hid from him," as in the masonic oaths, he ought to withdraw from them, as soon as he may know what he has done, and "confess that he hath sinned in that thing !” At present, I can see but one way by which they will be likely to endeavor to evade the conclusion which is so clear from this passage; which is it may be said that the passage stands connected with Jewish ceremonies,

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,