LETTER TO LORENZO DOW.

REV. LORENZO Dow,

SIR-A few weeks since, a late publication of yours fell into my hands, entitled "Omnifarious Law Exemplified, or How to Curse, Lie, Cheat, Kill,&c. according to Law," and I found by perusing the work that you had lectured on what you termed, "The Law of Nature, Common Law, Salt Water Law, Fresh Water Law, Jocky Law," and sundry others, and although you did not formally mention the "Masonic Law," yet I observe that it claimed substantially a prominent feature in your book. I readily acknowledge that I was not at all pleased with your disquisitions on Masonic Law; I have therefore thought it expedient to suggest to you a few thoughts, to which I beg your candid attention.

About eight years since, I took one degree in speculative Free Masonry-to this step I was urged by those who professed to be my friends, and although I acknowledge, that all things considered, I consented to go forward and join the fraternity-yet I am confident that I never should have taken this step, but for the earnest entreaties of others, and the representations which were made to me by Masons, in respect to the institution, exalting it very highly in the scale of pure morality, as an handmaid to religion-benevolent in its objects, and also a source of great information in respect to some difficult subjects in the Old Testament, &c. I accordingly went forward, as already observed, and was initiated. I do not now distinctly recollect one single specific idea that was then taught me in relation to the principles of masonry, but the obligation to keep what

was taught me secret, and the penalty in case of break. ing that obligation, I do remember. I never, after leaving the lodge, gave the sign of an entered apprentice, nor do I think that I could have given it one hour afterwards, correctly. I was tried by a Master Mason on this, some three or four years ago, and could not recollect scarcely any thing at all on the subject. I do not know that at the time, I conceived that there was any thing very iniquitous in the principles inculcated in the first degree-but I was considerably tried in respect to the manner in which I was inducted, the obligation which I had taken, and the penalty of that obligation, &c. This I mentioned to a Royal Arch Mason a few days afterwards, and being also disgusted with the conduct of some Masons, in relation to other subjects, I went no further.

Some three or four years since, before the Morgan excitement commenced, I was advised by some of my masonic friends to advance, and thought that I should, but in the providence of God was prevented, for which I now feel thankful.

The secrets of Masonry, therefore, excepting the obligation and penalty, I shall never reveal, from my own personal knowledge, for I cannot, if so disposed, having no distinct recollection of them. Since the great excitement on the subject, I have had very serious exerci. ses in relation to the course which duty dictated for me to pursue. Nor did I become settled in my determinations until the perusal of your pamphlet last week, entitled "Omnifarious Law Exemplified." I had indeed before, when I had heard "Anti-Masons" condemned by wholesale, as men of no principle, vagabonds, perjured wretches, &c. by some Masons, been almost ready to come out and bear my testimony against such unhallowed conduct; yet the reflection that many valuable members of society were numbered among Masons, with many brethren in Christ, whom I highly esteemed, whose feelings would undoubtedly be hurt in consequence of such a course, together with the great question whether it was duty or not, and in addition, I must

also own the fear of man, of reproach, and of slander, being also thrown into the same scale-it preponderated in favour of silence. But when I came to per

use your book, just now alluded to, and find such language as this, evidently alluding to all who had renounced Masonry, viz. "Those persons who publicly avow that they are perjured men, or else impostors, can have no claim to public confidence; but must appear in their true character as liars, taking their word for it; which is doing them true justice; of course, having destroyed the force of moral obligation from their minds, what trust or confidence can be placed in them? Methinks they must feel like Cain! Afraid of their lives! afraid of men-and go into voluntary exile." I say, when I come to read this, together with your giving Anti-Masons the characters of Judas, of the Pope, of the Inquisition of Spain, &c. "I then believed,' and therefore 'will' I speak." If you ask me what I believed, I will frankly tell you that I believed and felt fully satisfied that you were advocating a bad cause, which I also expect to make appear in the sequel to every candid reader who may yet entertain any doubt at all on this subject. Before I proceed, however, suffer me to remind you that in early life, and in more advanced years, I entertained for you great veneration, for your apparent disinterestedness in the cause of God and humanity; and although I became, some time since, satisfied that you were erroneous in respect to some of your theological ideas, yet I still highly esteemed you as a Christian and a man; nor do I yet denounce you as entirely destitute of true religion. Yet that the stand which you have taken, in respect to the subject of Masonry and Anti-Masons, is obnoxious to truth-the law of love-the law of Christ--the common law-the law of nature-and, wrong in the sight of nature's God, I do not doubt. Whether it be inconsistent with masonic law, or their law of oaths, is another question, which may be more fully developed in the sequel; yet one thing is sure with me, that you ought to be reproved in the sight of heaven and earth, for the statements which you have made in relation to the

Y

subject in question; and the more so, as you have possessed a considerable degree of influence with many in our country. O Lorenzo, is this you. You, who have complained so much of persecution-You who have wrote so much against bondage, ecclesiastical and political. I say, is this you, now denouncing Anti-Masons by wholesale, and comparing those who have renounced Masonry, without any qualification, to Judas, Iscariot, Cain, &c. and representing them as liars, who "have destroyed the force of moral obligation on their own minds," perjured persons, &c. In the name of justice, in the name of truth, in the name of virtue, in the name of religion, and of religion's God, I beseech you to forbear.

But I wish to call your attention more directly to the merits of the cause at issue between us. And I begin with this question-this plain question—this question which needs no sophistry to state; nor more than ordinary intellect to understand it.—" If a man promises to do wrong, had he better keep his promise or break it ?" Or which is the same thing--" if he take an oath to do wrong, had he better persist in his oath or renounce it ?"

Now you, and every other man, woman and child who have any conception of the immutable difference between right and wrong, know that there is but one plain correct answer to these questions; and that is, that it is an obligation that we are under, a moral obligation, an obligation to our God, to our country, to our families, and to ourselves, to renounce doing that which is wrong, however we may have previously," awfully" (I think this the most applicable term,) promised that we would not. And if the circumstances attending making the promise independently of that which it binds us to do, renders it iniquitous in taking or retaining it, we are bound to renounce or denounce our conduct in that also. This is the truth, Lorenzo,

and you cannot deny it. Deny it if you can! You dare not deny it directly, but you do deny it indirectly.

You deny it in your statement which I have

66

already quoted. You represent those who have renounced masonry as the most vile wretches on earth, and solely on this ground too. Yes, although their character in every other respect may be as unspotted as the clearest and brightest luminary in the heavens, yet this, in your estimation, (and I am sorry to say that the same spirit appears to be manifested by multitudes of the craft,) is enough to damn him to the lowest hell!! This is enough to constitute him a traitor—“ a perjured wretch;" to fix upon him the character of "being dead to the force of moral obligation;"" unworthy of public confidence ;""a Judas, and a liar.". Lorenzo!-there is a righteous God, and there is an awful judgment, unto which you and those who are coadjutors with you in this work of defamation and slander, are fast approaching; where you will meet those which you have indiscriminately condemned as being actuated by the basest and vilest of motives, for having renounced masonry, face to face, before an impartial, heart-searching God, and it is possible that you will then find that instead of bearing the character which you now give them, and instead of having been actuated by the motives which you impute to them, they will appear clothed in white raiment, having come up out of great tribulation; and that in renouncing masonry they discharged what they considered at duty, and to answer a clear conscience to their God.

Do you not suppose, Lorenzo, that admitting you think there is nothing in the oaths and principles of masonry that need disturb the mind of a Christian who has become a member of the fraternity, yet that some may honestly conclude that there is in their judgment, and so renounce it from principle? Undoubtedly. And undoubtedly men have renounced it from such a conviction and principle; men whose characters for truth and veracity, for morality and religion, will not probably suffer, either in competition with your own or any other steadfast mason in all Christendom.

But the cause does not rest here; on the supposition