IV. I have now to deal with a fourth practical objection to Free-

masonry, which, to say the truth, though apparently very serious, is not at aU so in reality— at least, to my mind. It is this, that Free- masonry imposes and entails upon its members the taking of ''unlawful oaths.**
" 49
What are unlawful oaths is a question we must answer in the first place clearly and fully, and, having done so, we can then go on to deal with the objection. ^
There can be, I think, but one reply to such a query. Those oaths are clearly unlawful, I think that all will agree, which are forbidden to be imposed or to be taken by the Legislature of this or any other country.
All oaths are clearly not unlawful, such as those which are con- stantly — nay, hourly, called for and administered in courts of justice, or which are ordered or sanctioned by ancient usages or special enact- ment.
The ** onus proband! " therefore clearly falls upon our opponents to make plain that any alleged Masonic obligation or oaths are forbidden by the Legislature.
But, as the existence of Freemasonry as a secret society is openly recognised and protected by the laws of our land, as regards Free- masonry in Great Britain, at any rate, the objection is clearly alto- gether unsoimd and untenable.
Nothing can be unlawful which the law permits. I have already previously said that, if anywhere Freemasonry is forbidden in its secret character by the laws of the State, to exist as secret, or to enforce any binding obligations equally in secret, there, in my opinion, no Freemason has a right, and no true brother would seek, to run counter to the laws of that country which may for a time become the place of his residence, or afford him its pro- tection.
But Mr. Kerr, a recent assailant of Freemasonry, a Scotch Keformed Presbyterian minister of Greenock, takes another ground, that our Masonic system in this respect does dishonour to the ^' Ordinance of the oath" in Keformed Presbyterian terminology, and takes God's name in vain, being alike rash and profane swearing.
Now, first of all, whatever force Mr, Kerr's objections may have for the members of his own community, they have none for others, or for Freemasons, inasmuch as Freemasons themselves are as good judges as Mr. Kerr, or the Reformed Presbyterian Synods of Glasgow and Edinburgh, of what may be fairly called " rash and profane swearing." Therefore, as far as Freemasons are concerned, Mr. Ken*'s objections under this head, are clearly "nihil ad rem," and they will pass them by altogether, for this reason among others, that they them- selves, as Freemasons, alone are the best judges of the need, or impor- tance, or righful requirement of any obligation.
But I would also beg to observe here, and remind my brethren, that Mr. Kerr illustrates his views, and bases his allegations or quot- ations mainly from a person who boasts that he is a deserter from the Banners of Freemasonry, and, certainly, no deserter, on his own confession, ever better deserved to be marked with the letter D. As such — ^his evidence is tainted aborigine, and his witness very
BO
questionable. 'And I decline, therefore, as my brethren, wouid decline, to enter into any argument founded on evidence of such a class, as it bears openly before all men the stigma and confedsioa of deliberate treachery and perjury on its very face. Good Mr. Kerr, with Jesuitical casuistry, lays down this most baneful maxim, that Free- masons are not bound to keep the oaths he says are imposed on them, because they may be and are, in their opinion and in his, or in that of the Reformed Presbyterian Synods, opposed to the law of God.
I sadly wonder to see the good man in such bad company, and with such Komaniziug tendencies, for though it is not the first time in history that Calviuism like Jesuitism has taken up those injurious propositions, '* The end justifies the means," " You may do evil that good may come^" and that there is a " dispensing power'* vested in an ecclesiastical body, by which it can even relax the binding nature of an obligation ; J confess that I did not expect to hear such a recom- mendation from a Keformed Presbyterian minister, and to be told that it is sanctioned by two Reformed Presbyterian Synods.
It is really most alarming.
I think, that I need only add on this subject, that it is one vrith which, in reality, the Church nor any religious body has anything to do, and that it can only be decided and adjudicated on by Free- masons themselves.
For I cannot conceive that there is more objection " h priori" to a Masonic obligation, be it what it may, than there is to the oath still taken by many of the city guilds, or any of the oaths of ad- minstration imposed by long usage, or by public or private acts of Parliament.
And therefore, though a good many weakminded persons make a great deal of this very objection, we, as Freemasons, need not care to say more about it, as it is a matter alone for our own govern- ment, arrangements, and judgment, which no other authority has anything to do with whatever.
Of all assailants the Church of Rome, in its objections, is most inconceivably rash and indefensible.
It has secret societies, and secret vows, and secret oaths in plenty, and certainly for the Roman Catholics, or any other religious body under this head, to object to a similar system because not approved of by each particular community, is a relic of ecclesiastical inter- ference and tyranny, which the sooner each of them surrenders the better.