-
Articles/Ads
Article REJECTED LETTERS.* ← Page 6 of 8 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Rejected Letters.*
trary to the constitutions of Freemasonry , ivhich forbids such concealment , or of treason or murder . Because there is no parallel between the secrecy of the confessional aud the secrecy of Freemasonry , the one being a religious , the other a temporal affair . Because most of such societies are secret only in name , opened to all the inhabitants of the globegood character and morals being the onl
, y test , to all potentates and magistrates , to bishops and priests , if they were not forbidden by their own ecclesiastical regulations . Because it is notorious that all revolutions said to have been aided b y Freemasons , would have occurred if Freemasonry had never existed . Because it is a common vulgar error to class " secrecy " with " evil , " some persons forming false notions of secrecy , either from prejudice or under the influence of preconceived opinions bivhich they deceive
y themselves , as well as others . The morbid imaginations of such persons cannot separate secrecy from darkness—an oath to keep secret the affairs of Freemasonry , from an oath to keep secret crimes , conspiracies , assassinations , and murder , in face of the axiom , " an oath bindeth not iniquity . " A secrecy over which they have thrown certain romantic , horrible fancies of deep , dismal , dungeon gloom , phantoms of their * own creation in weak and distorted intellects . This absurd self-created
conscienciousness would object to oaths altogether , as the Quakers , who appeal to Scripture in support of these scruples , " but I say unto you , not to swear at all , " St . Matt ., v . 33 . In Leviticus , xix . 12 , however , it is said , " Ye shall not swear by my name to deceive . " Which explains the meaning of the above as understood by all Christians . In Deut ., vi . 30 , and x . 20 , is said , "Thou shalt swear by his name / ' In Num ., xxx . 3 , " That man that voweth a vow to the Lord , shall not break his word . " Which clearly shows that oaths are lawful for lawful purposes . AVill then any man affirm that the oath attributed to Freemasons is for an unlawful purpose—therefore immoral ?
FOURTH OBJECTION . WANT OP AUTHORITY . That any oath ( or affirmation ) being extra-judicial , not imposed or commanded by the laws of the land , is " illegal , " according to the " Tablet " of Dec . 1844 , therefore is imposed without authority , and is immoral .
NOT SO , — Because the constitutions of Freemasonry are accommodated to the laws of every country , and the present code of British Freemasonry was renewed a few years ago by a committee of the ablest lawyers of the day , under the Grand Mastership of his Royal Highness the late Duke of Sussex , ivhose name alone ought to have been a sufficient guarantee against the monstrous assertions of the " Tablet . " In all Acts of
Parliament against secret societies , secret oaths , associations , & c , British Freemasons are specially exempted , therefore not " illegal . " Because it is a false assumption involved in this objection , that the swearing of an extra-judicial oath is a compulsory act , compulsory like too many of the numerous judicial ones , which cause persons to swallow them as being " mere matters of form , " or " custom-house oaths , " often
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Rejected Letters.*
trary to the constitutions of Freemasonry , ivhich forbids such concealment , or of treason or murder . Because there is no parallel between the secrecy of the confessional aud the secrecy of Freemasonry , the one being a religious , the other a temporal affair . Because most of such societies are secret only in name , opened to all the inhabitants of the globegood character and morals being the onl
, y test , to all potentates and magistrates , to bishops and priests , if they were not forbidden by their own ecclesiastical regulations . Because it is notorious that all revolutions said to have been aided b y Freemasons , would have occurred if Freemasonry had never existed . Because it is a common vulgar error to class " secrecy " with " evil , " some persons forming false notions of secrecy , either from prejudice or under the influence of preconceived opinions bivhich they deceive
y themselves , as well as others . The morbid imaginations of such persons cannot separate secrecy from darkness—an oath to keep secret the affairs of Freemasonry , from an oath to keep secret crimes , conspiracies , assassinations , and murder , in face of the axiom , " an oath bindeth not iniquity . " A secrecy over which they have thrown certain romantic , horrible fancies of deep , dismal , dungeon gloom , phantoms of their * own creation in weak and distorted intellects . This absurd self-created
conscienciousness would object to oaths altogether , as the Quakers , who appeal to Scripture in support of these scruples , " but I say unto you , not to swear at all , " St . Matt ., v . 33 . In Leviticus , xix . 12 , however , it is said , " Ye shall not swear by my name to deceive . " Which explains the meaning of the above as understood by all Christians . In Deut ., vi . 30 , and x . 20 , is said , "Thou shalt swear by his name / ' In Num ., xxx . 3 , " That man that voweth a vow to the Lord , shall not break his word . " Which clearly shows that oaths are lawful for lawful purposes . AVill then any man affirm that the oath attributed to Freemasons is for an unlawful purpose—therefore immoral ?
FOURTH OBJECTION . WANT OP AUTHORITY . That any oath ( or affirmation ) being extra-judicial , not imposed or commanded by the laws of the land , is " illegal , " according to the " Tablet " of Dec . 1844 , therefore is imposed without authority , and is immoral .
NOT SO , — Because the constitutions of Freemasonry are accommodated to the laws of every country , and the present code of British Freemasonry was renewed a few years ago by a committee of the ablest lawyers of the day , under the Grand Mastership of his Royal Highness the late Duke of Sussex , ivhose name alone ought to have been a sufficient guarantee against the monstrous assertions of the " Tablet . " In all Acts of
Parliament against secret societies , secret oaths , associations , & c , British Freemasons are specially exempted , therefore not " illegal . " Because it is a false assumption involved in this objection , that the swearing of an extra-judicial oath is a compulsory act , compulsory like too many of the numerous judicial ones , which cause persons to swallow them as being " mere matters of form , " or " custom-house oaths , " often