Page images
PDF
EPUB

political aspirants. If any improper influence in this respect, has been employed, as is asserted, he does not hesitate to pronounce it anti-masonic-against the rules of the order; for both religion, on which itself was originally founded, as well as politics, are totally excluded from the lodge.

The most material and best founded objection that has been brought against masonry, is the oaths which it imposes upon the brethren. They are shocking to the taste of the present age: their continuance was an enormous blunder in the revivers of the order in 1717. They were then no longer necessary. Masonry contains nothing which at that time rendered its members amenable to the laws of England.

The false construction put upon these oaths, has implicated the order in the foulest deeds; and perhaps caused the masonic obligations to be considered paramount to legal oaths administered in courts of law, and thus perverted the course of justice. The only means, therefore, of avoiding this evil, and of wiping away the stain at present attached to the society, is a total abandonment of the oaths.*

However desirable this may be to many of the brethren, it is

"At the very threshhold of our mysteries, an oath of secrecy, extremely minute in all its details, and tremendous in its sanctions, has from time immemorial been exacted of every candidate. It is not to be supposed that such an oath had no foundation at first. It would argue a profligacy incredible, to invent one so sacred and inviolable merely for the sake of swearing it. Nor does such a solemnity comport with the design or practices of any association of architects whatever. For what is there, or what could there ever have been, in the art of building, or in the whole circle of science merely, that could require or even warrant so appalling an obligation? Neither does it agree with the present state of the institution; for masonry harbors no treasons nor blasphemies. Its designs at the present day are not only innocent, but laudable. It requires us to fear God and promote the happiness of man. The inventors of this oath, then, must have most unpardonably trifled with the awful solemnity of such an engagement, if, at the time of its institution, there did not exist a cause, proportionate, at least in some degree, to the precautions used against its violation. (Vid.-The way to words by things, or an attempt at the retrieval of the ancient Celtic, in a volume of tracts in the library of Harvard College.) What this cause was, we can determine only by probable conjecture. But we may presume that it must have originated in some great personal danger, if not death, apprehended to members of the institution from the populace, if their secrets were laid open to the world. Every mason, by reflecting on these hints, will satisfy his own mind, that at the first constitution of our fraternity, its great object was not solely the advancement of the arts, still less of architecture alone."-(Greenleaf's Brief Inquiry into the Origin and Principles of Freemasonry.

resisted by others on the absurd and superstitious notion, that no alterations can take place in "the ancient land-marks" of the institution; which, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, must remain eternally the same: when, notwithstanding, within about fifty years, the old inclosures have been broken down, and the boundaries of the order extended so as to include an immense territory beyond the ancient limits.

After this unqualified reprobation of the oaths, I confidently assert, that nothing is taught or practised in the lodges contrary to the strictest morals. The exposition of the ritual by those even who are inimical to the order, proves the fact. And, as has been often urged, if there were no other testimony, the characters of many of those who are known to be members, is a sufficient guarantee that nothing improper would be tolerated.

If it be said, that a partial feeling is created among the brethren, that operates injuriously to the public good, it may be answered, that the same objection may be urged against all associations of individuals, whatever may be their views and intentions.

This partiality, by the way, has been the cause of relieving many in distress, and even saving the lives of valuable citizens. A case of this kind happened in the American revolutionary war, which is often alluded to by masonic writers. Col. McKenstry was taken prisoner by the Indians, who were preparing to put him to a cruel death. In this emergency, he gave the masonic sign of distress, which induced a brother mason, a British officer, to interfere and save his life.

While this transaction reflects honor upon the officer as a mason, it at the same time leaves an indelible stain upon his character as a man, which equally attaches to his king and government. What! employ savages as auxiliaries in war, and then stand by and look coolly on, while they amuse themselves in tomahawking and

scalping their prisoners, unless the latter can give the talismanic signal, and pronounce the Shibboleth of masonry?—But as kings are considered by their subjects not to be moral agents, but looked upon as minors or idiots who can do no wrong, the prime minister at the time, lord North, and his principal adviser, lord Sackville, must bear the bulk of the odium.

This rule of masons to grant aid to each other under certain circumstances, was probably derived from the laws of Egypt: by which, "He who had neglected or refused to save a man's life when attacked, if it were in his power to assist him, was punished as rigorously as the assassin: but if the unfortunate person could not be succoured, the offender was at least to be impeached, and penalties were decreed for any neglect of this kind. Thus the subjects were a guard and protection to one another; and the whole body of the community united against the designs of the bad."-(Rollin's Anc. Hist.)

Some apology for the awful oaths administered in masonic lodges, is perhaps due on the score of precedent; which has in all times greatly influenced the customs and government of the world, and sometimes sanctified principles the most absurd and pernicious.

The mysteries were protected by the most severe oaths in Greece and Rome, and, no doubt, were equally so in Egypt, the place of their birth. And, moreover, in the two former countries, if not in the latter, revealing the secrets of these mysteries was punished with death by the laws.

For this there was a substantial reason: the greater mysteries taught the doctrine of one Supreme God, and that polytheism was an error; admitting, at the same time, that the sun, moon, and stars, were minor divinities under the superintendence of the one Supreme. The belief, however, in Hero-gods was so engrafted on the minds of the ignorant multitude, that it was feared the open

promulgation of a doctrine in opposition to that faith, would lead to disturbances in the state that might produce great evil. This mystery consequently was confided only to a chosen few of the most intelligent, under the sanction of an oath and the penalties of the law.

When freemasonry was first established in England, soon after the edict of Canute, in the beginning of the eleventh century, (as is presumed,) prohibiting in toto the Druidical worship, the strongest oaths were required to bind the initiated to secrecy: for had the real intent of its founders been known, it would doubtless have cost them their lives.

That Canute was superstitious, and of course vindictive, is evident from his having made a pilgrimage to Rome, through excessive religious zeal, in 1030; and, therefore would, no doubt, have punished the Druids for an infraction of his edict with merciless cruelty.

By the incorporation of the Danes with the nation, (says Lingard, in his History of England,) the rites of paganism had again made their appearance in the island. Canute forbade the worship of the heathen gods, of the sun or moon, of fire or water, of stones or fountains, and of forests or trees.

This ferocious and sanguinary warrior, in 1030, made a pilgrimage to Rome. On the road he visited the most celebrated churches, leaving every where proofs of his devotion and liberality. In his return he proceeded immediately to Denmark, but despatched the abbot of Tavistock to England with a letter, describing the object and issue of his journey. In this letter he says, "It is long since I bound myself by my vow to make this pilgrimage; but I had been hitherto prevented by affairs of state, and other impediments. Now, however, I return humble thanks to Almighty God, that he has allowed me to visit the tombs of the blessed apostles,

Peter and Paul, and every holy place within and without the city of Rome, and to honor and venerate them in person. And this I have done, because I had learned from my teachers, that the apostle St. Peter received from the Lord the great power of binding and loosing, with the keys of the kingdom of heaven. On this account I thought it highly useful to solicit his patronage with God."

He concludes his letter as follows: "Lastly, I entreat all my bishops, and all the sheriffs, by the fidelity which they owe to me and to God, that the church dues, according to the ancient laws, may be paid before my return, namely: the plow-alms, the tithes of cattle of the present year, the Peter-pence, the tithes of fruit in the middle of August, and the kirk-shot at the feast of St. Martin, to the parish church. Should this be omitted, at my return, I will punish the offender by exacting the whole fine appointed by law. Fare ye well."

Furthermore, it may be remarked, that the customs of the times in which I am endeavoring to show that masonry was established, sanctioned the most horrible oaths.

"The multiplicity of oaths in the judicial proceeding of the middle ages,* (says Dr. Henry, in his History of Great Britain, v. iii, p. 425,) had the same effect that it will always have, of diminishing men's veneration for them, and giving occasion for frequent perjury. The legislators of those times employed several devices to prevent this, by awakening the consciences, and keeping alive the religious fears of mankind. With this view, their oaths were couched in the most awful forms of words that could be invented; and these forms were frequently changed, that they might not lose their effect by becoming too familiar."

Many who have written with great asperity against masonry, under false impressions of its general tendency, have doubtless

*The middle or dark ages are described as comprehending the thousand years from the taking of Rome by the Goths, in the middle of the fifth century, to the taking of Constantinople, by the Turks, in the middle of the fifteenth century.-Edit.

« PreviousContinue »