Images de page
PDF
ePub

unblushing face, they will plead for prostituting that awfully solemn ordinance of worship, to trifles.

The Confession says, "Therefore, to swear vainly or rashly by that glorious name, is sinful and to be abhorred." Can the oath in question be freed from this charge? We have seen that every duty to fellow men, every duty required in the word of God, can be performed without it. And these comprehend all the duties of human life through all the possible variety of office, occupation and relation. What purpose then does it serve, which cannot be equally well accomplished without it? If it serve no distinct purpose, it must be vain.

When a man swears this oath he has, it is said, no particular knowledge of what he is binding himself to do. Whether or not, this is rash swearing will not admit of a doubt with any possessed of common sense, and not already biassed. There is no parallel to it among the transactions of human life. In vain do you propose to the simplest man in the commercial circle, to sign an obligation before he reads it. No man that values his liberty, will swear allegiance to a constitution of civil government, of which he knows nothing. The very circumstance of keeping it secret would excite a suspicion in his mind, that something in it was not right. No man that places a just value on his life, or the comforts of his family, will engage himself by oath, to fight in a cause till he has examined it, and found it consonant with justice.

How then can any man, taking the Bible as the rule of his ́faith and practice, swear to do he knows not what, (a thing without precept or example,) and yet not swear rashly? He cannot.This oath then, is unquestionably vain and rash, and therefore sinful, and to be abhorred."

The Confession says, "Yet in matters of weight and moment an oath is lawful by the word of God, neither may a man bind himself by an oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and is able and resolved to perform." But how is it possible in this case, for the juror to know whether or not the matter be of weight and moment? All is a profound secret until the oath be taken. While he is in the act of swearing, there is not a single definite idea of it in his mind. How then does he know before he takes the oath, whether the "matter be good and just" or not? For any thing he knows, this oath may, in some cases, set aside all his previous obligations to God and man. He has no assurance before he takes this oath, that it will not bind him to save the enemy of his country provided he be a mason;—that it will not oblige him when a witness to conceal the truth, when it would make against any of his fraternity,

A favour of one not belonging to it; that it will not call on ▲ when a juryman, to give a more favourable verdict, if the pannel be a brother than he would otherwise do;-and that it will not bias his mind when a judge, to give sentence contrary to the Law. All this may possibly be the case. Now what is there in Masonry to counterbalance the hazard of such evils? But I might say in truth, that this is more than a bare possibility. In those districts of the country where Masonry greatly prevails, it may be gathered from the whispers, and murmurs current, that not a doubt remains in the minds of many respectable persons, of the real existence of all these evils. If they do exist, Masonry cannot be innocent; and it may be the secret instrument of the most horrible disasters to church and state, which they have ever experienced. If this be only the conjecture of the writer, then why have some of the most enlightened nations thought it needful to lay it under certain limitations, and others to prohibit it altogether? It will hardly be disputed, that in those parts of the States where masonry has been extensively entered into, that it is in vain to set up any one not of the brotherhood, as a candidatė for office; in vain to attempt to carry any public measure how obvious soever its advantages, unless the attempt be made by them. Therefore I would repeat it, that a man before this oath is taken, has no sufficient evidence to believe that he is not binding himself virtually to conceal a scheme, if devised by Freemasons, for overthrowing the constitution, or for subverting the plainest truths of the Bible. But it is plead, that the freemasons have on some occasions distinguished themselves as friends to some public institutions, and that they have relieved widows, &c. Sir, if they were to lay out all the money, which is devoted to revelling and drunkenness, on charitable purposes, say Bible and Missionary societies, the nature of masonry would be just what it is now. heard some time ago, that a stage company in the Theatre of

I

generously agreed to let the benefit of one night be given to the Bible Society! must I therefore believe that the Theatre is a "school of virtue?" I have somewhere read of a Devil preaching the Gospel! and a spirit of divination proclaiming this great truth "These men are the servants of the most high God, and show unto us the way of salvation," must I therefore, conclude that Hell has become friendly to the free grace of God, and the salvation of souls? The reasoning in the one case, is the same as it would be in the other.

To prove the matter of it to be just, we are frequently told that the principles and rules of Masonry are consonant with the Scriptures. Some short time ago, I read a piece published by

themselves, which boasted "that men of all descriptions-Jews, Mahometans, Turks, Savages, Philosophers, and Christians, meet in their cordial brotherhood, and laying aside all other distinctions, join in worshiping the one supreme and universal God.”— Then, Sir, I suppose I must admit that principles consonant with the Scriptures, are congenial to the views and feelings of this incongruous mass! As soon will light and darkness be amalgamated-as soon will Hell and Heaven meet in love. Without exceeding the bounds of truth, the writer referred to, might have included the infidel, the drunkard, the unclean, the profane swearer, the Sabbath breaker, and the vicious of almost every description.

What has an heir of glory to do with such a motly mixture? How can he expect to find in that, which can possibly be congenial to the views and feelings of all these, any thing peculiar to the Gospel or accordant with the love of God? How can it be consistent for him, who has vowed not to sit in the seat of the scornful, or stand in the way of sinners, to meet with such? How is it possible for the matter to be "just and good?"

The Confession says that an oath may be "imposed by lawful authority." By what authority, I ask, is this oath imposed? It is neither civil nor ecclesiastical, nor public authority of any description. It is a nameless and unknown authority, of whose nature we must be ignorant, until we have actually submitted to it. Upon what ground can we conclude that to be a lawful authority, which is constituted neither by the laws of God nor by the laws of the state?

In the same manner might it be shown, that a man cannot on any sound principle "resolve to perform that to which he swears" in this case, nor "believe he is able to perform it."

But I may be told, that I do not know what Masonry is, and therefore my reasoning may not be applicable. Still I may know with certainty what it is not, and by this means I shall obtain sufficient data to support all the conclusions I have drawn.

I know that the whole principles of the Gospel dwell in the clearest light, and powerfully constrain every mind which embraces them, to diffuse the knowledge of them, without limitation or condition; Masonry does not; it dwells in thick darkness; it invokes the aid of Jehovah's name to bar out the light. The moment it would present itself in open day, it would expire and become extinct. From this, I infer, that its very essence is directly the opposite of the spirit of Revelation.

I know that the Bible addresses itself as much to women and children, as to men-that its maxims and doctrines elevate the

female to her own proper importance, as a companion for man→→→→ that it adorns her character with a divine loveliness, which makes her the brightest ornament of human kind. Masonry treats her with sullen silence, and leaves her comfortless, among her tender offspring, to weep. I know that its principles are not necessary to make a good citizen, a good neighbour, a good husband, a good parent, or a good Christian. I know certainly, that it is not necessary to the safety or prosperity of the State, or of the church. I know that it is not necessary, to the most useful and honourable life, or to the most safe and happy death, and this is enough for me. Sir, if any of your readers have unhappily been drawn into this dark monopoly, in which he dare not allow the wife of his bosom, or his children, or his dearest and most faithful friends to participate, I would urge him to review the deed in the light of God's word, and renounce it as a henious sin. It is not unlikely, that some may still consider the whole subject of this paper a trifling affair, and not worthy of having so much said about; yet, it would not be very difficult to trace immorality of almost every species, to indifference about the taking of an oath, which must have place in all the cases above-mentioned. The first effect of it is, to destroy any remaining impressions of the omniscience and omnipresence of God on the mind. When this effect is complete, there will then be " no fear of God before his eyes." When a sinner gets fairly above the fear of God, he will not much regard man. Every other restraint on the conduct imperceptibly loses strength, and at last fails to hold back the flood of iniquity swelling in the heart; and then it carries all before it. Thus, it is but a very few steps from this wicked indifference about an oath, to an open and entire abandonment of one's self to every vice.

That it is different, in any instance, is owing to God's restraining power and the influence of better principles. I therefore beseech the reader, not to consider it a light matter.

It is a sin indeed little thought of, even by those entrusted with the execution of good and wholesome laws. They can very easily excuse it, and admit abatements and palliations; but the Lord will not hold him guiltless, that taketh his name in vain.Reader, if the guilt of this sin lies upon you, and you have never sought to wash it away in the blood of the Lamb; be not surprised, if God holds back his blessing; if you are neither comforted nor edified by divine ordinances; if he meet you at every turn with a frown in his face. You have insulted him. You have trampled on his authority-disregarded his threatenings-and belied all your professions of love and obedience. How can he

be but angry? Will not this cast a doubt upon the interest of your soul in him as your God? and if death should overtake you in this state of doubt and fear, how much to be pitied is your situation: How will the thought that you so profaned that blessed name, lacerate your feelings, and distract your mind at that moment, when you are placed beyond the reach of all earthly comfort!

In a word, bring your thoughts about God often under review, make it the burden of your prayer, that his fear may rule continually in your hearts, and manifest itself through the whole of your deportment. G.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

On the subject of intercommunion, among the members of dif ferent religious professions, two valuable papers will be found in our last volume. The reasons adduced in one of these, especially, to shew the unwarrantableness of the practice, we think cannot be overthrown; and we know that they have been the means of establishing some in the truth. The advocates of intercommunion have been as sparing of argument in support of their theory as they have been abundant in declamation. This species of address, on this subject, has peculiar force; for the practice it recommends seems to savour so highly of christian affection and charity, and, viewed in one point, presents an aspect so lovely, that we must do violence to our feelings to resist the appeal.— "What! shall any man take it upon him to exclude one of God's dear children from his own table, or refuse to admit to the most intimate fellowship with him in holy things, the man whom the God of ordinances admits to communion with himself, and with whom we would rejoice to hold eternal fellowship in the upper sanctuary? Can you, dare you exclude such a man from the table of the Lord?" Our feelings instantly answer, no; and so would our judgment too, if such were a full or fair representation of the case. We cheerfully admit that in other communions there are many of God's dear children, sound in the faith, exemplary and useful in their lives, with whom it would rejoice our hearts to join in the most intimate bonds of christian fellowship. Why, then, not do it? For reasons which we believe sound and good, (for which we refer our readers to our 2d vol. p. 89-94,) and among others especially for this, that these same persons may be in a state of fellowship with those whose principles and conduct we cannot approve; and yet, in admitting the one to our fellowship,

« PrécédentContinuer »