"You shall be true men to God and his holy Church, and that you do not countenance or maintaine any eror, faction, schism or herisey, in ye church to ye best of your understanding." (_History of No. 53_, by James Smith.) The _Grand Lodge MS. No. 2_ provides that "You shall keepe secret ye obscure and intricate pts. of ye science, not disclosinge them to any but such as study and use ye same." The _Harleian MS. No. 2054_ (Brit. Mus.) is still more explicit, termed _The ffree Masons Orders and Constitutions_, and is in the handwriting of Randle Holme (author of the _Academie of Armory_, 1688), who was a member of a lodge in Cheshire. Following the MS. _Constitutions_, in the same handwriting, about 1650, is a scrap of paper with the obligation:-- "There is sevrall words and signes of a free Mason to be revailed to yu wch as yu will answr. before God at the Great and terrible day of judgmt. yu keep secret and not to revaile the same to any in the heares of any p'son, but to the Mrs and fellows of the Society of Free Masons, so helpe me God, &c." (W. H. Rylands, _Mas. Mag._, 1882.) It is not yet settled who were the actual designers or architects of the grand old English cathedrals. Credit has been claimed for church dignitaries, to the exclusion more or less of the master masons, to whom presumably of right the distinction belonged. In early days the title "architect" is not met with, unless the term "Ingenator" had that meaning, which is doubtful. As to this interesting question, and as to the subject of building generally, an historical account of Master and Free Masons (_Discourses upon Architecture in England_, by the Rev. James Dallaway, 1833), and _Notes on the Superintendents of English Buildings in the Middle Ages_ (by Wyatt Papworth, 1887), should be consulted. Both writers were non-masons. The former observes: "The honour due to the original founders of these edifices is almost invariably transferred to the ecclesiastics under whose patronage they rose, rather than to the skill and design of the master mason, or professional architect, because the only historians were monks.... They were probably not so well versed in geometrical science as the master masons, for mathematics formed a part of monastic learning in a very limited degree." In the _Journal of Proceedings R.I.B.A._ vol. iv. (1887), a skilful critic (W. H. White) declares that Papworth, in that valuable collection of facts, has contrived to annihilate all the professional idols of the century, setting up in their place nothing except the master mason. The brotherhood of Bridge-builders,[5] that travelled far and wide to build bridges, and the travelling bodies of Freemasons,[6] he believes never existed; nor was William of Wykeham the designer of the colleges attributed to him. It seems well-nigh impossible to disprove the statements made by Papworth, because they are all so well grounded on attested facts; and the attempt to connect the