“The accusations against Masons have been mostly half guesswork, half unquenchable malice and predetermined vilification. Nothing conclusive and certain of a criminal character has been directly proven against them. Even their abduction of Morgan has remained a matter of conjecture. The case was used at the time as a political convenience by huckstering politicians. When an unrecognizable corpse was found in Niagara River, one of the chiefs of this unscrupulous class, being informed that the identity was exceedingly questionable, unguardedly exposed the whole plot by saying: “Well, no matter, he’s a good enough Morgan until after the election!” On the other hand, we find the Order of the Jesuits not only permitting, in certain cases, but actually teaching and inciting to “High treason and Regicide.”
A series of Lectures upon Freemasonry and its dangers, as delivered in 1862, by James Burton Robertson, Professor of Modern History in the Dublin University, are lying before us. In them the lecturer quotes profusely as his authorities the said Abbe (Barruel, a natural enemy of the Masons, who cannot be caught at the confessional), and Robison, a well-known apostate-Mason of 1798. As usual with every party, whether belonging to the Masonic or anti-Masonic side, the traitor from the opposing camp is welcome with praise and encouragement, and great care is taken to whitewash him. However convenient for certain political reasons the celebrated Committee of the Anti-Masonic Convention of 1830 (United States of America) may have found it to adopt this most Jesuitical proposition of Puffendorf that “oaths oblige not when they are absurd and impertinent”, and that other which teaches that “an oath obliges not if God does not accept it”, yet no truly honest man would accept such sophistry.
We sincerely believe that the better portion of humanity will ever bear in mind that there exists a moral code of honor far more binding than an oath, whether on the Bible, Koran, or Veda. The Essenes never swore on anything at all, but their “ayes” and “nays” were as good and far better than an oath. Besides, it seems surpassingly strange to find nations that call themselves Christians, instituting customs in civil and ecclesiastical courts diametrically opposed to the command of their God, who distinctly forbids any swearing at all, “neither by heaven…nor by the earth…nor by the head.” It seems to us that to maintain that “an oath obliges not if God does not accept it”, besides being an absurdity – as no man living, whether he be fallible or infallible, can learn anything of God’s secret thoughts – is anti-Christian in the full sense of the word. The argument is brought forward only because it is convenient and answers the object.
Oaths will never be binding till each man will fully understand that humanity is the highest manifestation on earth of the Unseen Supreme Deity, and each man an incarnation of his God; and when the sense of personal responsibility will be so developed in him that he will consider foreswearing the greatest possible insult to himself, as well as to humanity. No oath is now binding, unless taken by one who, without any oath at all, will solemnly keep his simple promise of honor. Therefore, to bring forward as authorities such men as Barruel or Robison is simply obtaining the public confidence under false pretenses. It is not the “spirit of Masonic malice whose heart coins slanders like a mint”, but far more that of the Catholic clergy and their champions; and a man who would reconcile the two ideas of honor and perjury, in any case whatever, is not to be trusted himself.”
H. P. Blavatsky
The Mark Of God: Understanding Your "I AM Presence" 