Correspondence.

I do not consider the " stupid atheist" ov " irreligious libertino " is merely a person without understanding , or a proper sense of decency . On the contrary , I think tho expression is meant to bo applied to thoso who aro so puffed up , so vain-glorions of their own mental powers , and tho knowledgo they havo acquired therein , that they langh to scorn the bare idea that it is possible thero can bo any

knowledge " that passeth all understanding . " They fondly believe and triumphantly declare they know everything ; let us say , from tho taste of an orange to tho mechanism of the Univorse . This is the class of people to whom the Grand Orient has rccontly opened its portals ; the class of arrogant upstart mortals who claim to bo gods ; not the poor simple boobies whoso souls are no bigger than a ilea ' s , and whose

understanding is even less , or those who are intompoi-ato and immodest . I quite agree with Bro . Norton that it is tho design of Masonry " to bring together good and trne men of all religious denominations " —mine aro tho italics— " that each may seo that goodness and virtno are not monopolised by his chnrch . " Just so , my Brother Norton , but Grand Orient has gono just a step beyond , and

has declared officially that religion and irrebgion are on a footing of perfect equality , and that theists and atheists aro alike eligible to be accepted into Freemasonry . I say this declaration is outsido the true scope of our Fraternity , and so , it seems to me , to judge from tho words I have (( noted above , does Bro . Norton . Then , as to tho second phantom of my conjuring , when I ask , " what becomes of

my consistency wlion , on tho one hand , I swear to oboy tho laws of my country , and on tho other hand am prepared to vote an atheist into my Lodge . " Now there is nothing very alarming in this phantom . The reason why an atheist's testimony is not admissible in a court of law is simple enough . He rejects all the ordinary forms of obligation by which men bind themselves to speak tho

truth . Therefore it would be an act of gross injustice to condemn or acquit a prisoner on tho testimony of such a person . We can deal with the word of a religions man on oath , whatever the form of his religions belief may be , because it is spoken under a due sense of responsibility . He may be a most notable liar and be guilty of perjury in overy word that he utters , but he knows that if his

perjury is brought home to him , ho will suffer for it . But there is no binding an atheist ; he has no sense of morality in him—morality in my sense , not Bro . Norton ' s , be it remembered . And let me ask Bro . Norton how it is possible that an atheist can be obligated as a Mason . The Christian , tho Jew , tho Mohammedan , and the professors of other religious sects can do so , because , as I havo just

said , they all havo a senso of responsibility towards somo higher Being ; but nothing is sacred in tho eyes of an atheist . It is useless to speak of a man ' s honour when ho has none , or to expect he will keep his word when , to use a familiar expression , there is no power under tho sun which will compel his observance of it . There is then reason on the side of those who exclndo athoists from tho blessings of

Freemasonry . The " Universality" of Freemasonry is simply so much humbug— to speak in Bro . Norton ' s most pronounced fashion —if wo aro to accept every one at the bidding of a minority , Wo may as well open our , portals to tho thief , whose only crime is that ho has tho haziest aud most indistinct notions as to tho ownershin of property ; or to the adulterer , whose ideas about the relations

between the sexes are somewhat confused . In fact , as the thief and the adulterer , in the strictest sense , only sin against man , while the atheist sins against God , tho former aro preferable as candidates for Freemasonry to the latter . Yet I presume Bro . Norton is the List person in the world to advocate the admission of thieves and adulterers into onr Fraternity . As to the comparative injustice of tho

law against atheists , aud the now defnnct law against the Jews , there is absolutely no similitude . The Jews aro a law-abiding people , atheists are not . As people became moro enlightened , they saw the injnstice of denying to persons of a particular religious sect certain privileges which were enjoyed by all the rest of the community , and tho injustice was removed . This act of beneficence , however , to one

class of worthy citizens brought no injury to the other classes , while my contention is that the admission of atheists into our Fraternity will injuriously affect it . Hitherto wo have been in a position to refute with just indignation tho oft-repeated statement that there is no antagonism between religion and Freemasonry , but how have we been able to do so ? Whv , by pointing to the nndeniable fact

that , though wo exclude no ono ou the ground of his religious belief , and though religions discussions aro prohibited in our Lodges , we obligato none but those who havo some sense of religion iu them . Should wo stand in the same position if thero wore atheists in our midst ? Bro . Norton admits that the anarchist as wo havo pictured him would be ineligible , but whero is the difference between tho

atheist and the anarchist , except in tho greater criminality of the former ? He openly declares his unbelief in tho Creator and hia works , while the latter only sets himself in hostility to the institutions of the creature man . Yet the sin of the atheist is of no account in tho eyes of tho Grand Orient of France , provided , according to Bro . Thovenot's exposition , recently published in your columns , he is a man

of great mental acquirements . In my humble judgment , fhc " stupid " atheist , being " stupid" in tho sense of having little or no power of understnnding , is less dangerous than his confrere , with " a mind where superior attainments" aro held to "justify an exception in his behalf . " Er . t to return to Bro . Norton's argument . Ho agrees with mo that no one has a right " to insist that his insano ideas should

be respected by tho majority , " provided he is first satisfied they are insane . Well , bnt what has the Grand Orient of France jnsfc done but shown its respect for " atheism , " " free-thinking , " or by whatever name else m : iy be described the views of those who do not believe in God ? And shall we say , Bro . Norton , that atheism docs not betoken insanity : that is , literally , an unhealthy state of

the mind ? I qnito agree with yon , my Dear Brother , in all yon sny nbonfc different religionists . It is merely another way of declaring thero aro people who define orthodoxy as " their doxy , " and heterodoxy as "tho doxy of other people . " I know , too , most redoubtable upholder of the Universality of Freemasonry , there arc different degrees and kinds of insanity . Thns , some people are

Correspondence.

said to be as " mad as hatters , although why hatters should bo more insano than othor people transcends my power of comprehension . Others again aro said U bo " as mad as March hares , "which I must leave to tho animal physiological to explain . I have in my time heard too , of long abstruse philosophical discussions between adepts as to the difference between amentia and dimentia . But

without attempting to analyse too strictly tho meaning of the word "insanity , " I think I am justified iu affirmiug that , if tho almost universal belief of mankind in God is a proof of man ' s general mental health , thoabsenco of such belief in tho case of a very limited few , must be regardod as a proof of their mental unhcalth . And wero I inclined to indulge in casuistry rather than argunieut , I shonld plead atheism

is the " exception , " which justifies tho wisdom of the general law of theism , aud that in recognising tho equal claims of both to the respect of men and brethren , the Grand Orient is guilty of self-stultification . Lastly , if Fronch Freemasonry , under its altered Constitutions , is merely a kind of learned society , liko our Geographical , Historical , Linnman , Geological , Anthropological , Physiological—do not be

frightened , Bro . Norton , at this formidable array ; they aro tho titles of vory useful societies , which havo dono , and still arc doing , useful work—if French Masonry is this , and a huge benefit society to boot , then , I say , let this bo generally understood , and wo shall wish it all possiblo vitality and all the success which itself desires . But this is something other than Freemasonry in my opinion , and the Grand

Orient of Franco -would havo no cause to feel aggrieved at our Grand Lodgo , which is the Mother Grand Lodge of Specnlative Freemasonry , declining to recognise its claim to form part of the great Masonio brotherhood . I havo now touched on most , if not all , of tho points in Bro . Norton ' s reply to my first letter , and having dono this , I salute both hira aud you fraternally , and subscribe myself Your Servant and Brother , " TOLERANCE . "

Grand Orient And English Freemasonry.

GRAND ORIENT AND ENGLISH FREEMASONRY .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Although , before tho issue of your noxfc number the Grand Lodge , at its Quarterly Communication , will have probably disposed of tho question which , rightly or wrongly , has been raised therein concerning the Grand Orient of Frauce , yet I fraternally beg you will allow me to congratulate Brother Norton

upon his comprehensive and judicious reply to "Tolerance , " and , at the same time , to mako a few remarks upon tho matter . Brother Norton has not written a second " Plea on Behalf of the Grand Orient , " but decidedly a true defenco of the principles upon which alone must stand universal Freemasonry , viz ., " liberty of conscience . " He is the apostle of truo Masonio universality , and , as

such , ho deserves well of all true Masons . Excellently he argnes Masonic toleration against sectarianism , that historical loprosy that has engendered among societies and nations so many evils , and which now threatens to gangrene a largo part of the Masonic body . Forcibly ho proves that Freemasonry , symbolising light , must , necessarily advance with the spirit of tho ago ; and as much progress has been

made both in the scientific and theological world since Dr . Oliver wrote his sublime work on tho Antiquities of Masonry , so also the Society has not been stauding still altogether . Bro . Norton truly says that tho Grand Orient has simply extended tho circle of Masonic universality by expunging all theological requirements from candidates for Masonry ; ho clearly defines what has taken place ; and he might

have added , with much trnth , that such was from its foundation the tendency , and ever will bo the object , of French Masonry . Aiming at universal fraternity , which is not atbiinablo without absolute liberty of couscieuce , aud the utmost tolerance possible , it has never caused Jew , Mahommedan or even Christian to take the " obligation " upon the Bible , nor has it ever undertaken to present to candidates

that book—which has never figured among the jewels of its Lodgesas the " unerring standard of truth and justice . " Respecting all religious persuasions , it has , since its earliest days , accepted men of all creeds and opinions , believers or unbcliovers , snch as Lalando , Helvetius , Voltaire , aud many others , without a protest of any sort from Masonic authority in tho world .

Now , if French Masonry , which was certainly at that timo in closer relation than at present with the admitted mother Lodges , was not then reprehensible , and did not by such admissions trespass on the So-called ancient landmarks , how could it , a centni-y later , be taken to task , despite tho progress of tho time and modern exigencies , for not refusing men just as Littre , ov any of thoso who , holding tho

opinions of Prof . Tyndal or Sir W . Thompson , are , nevertheless , men of honour and honesty , good aud true ? As to tho charges of materialism nnd atheism mado against tho Grand Orient , just after the passing of its recent resolution , it cannot fairly remain after the official declarations which have been published iu your columns . Those acensations have boon repelled emphatically , and with calm

dignity , by both the President of the Conseil de l'Ordre and tbe Grand Secretary . " Nothing has been changed in the practice of French Masonry , " says Bro . Thovcnot . And it , is therefore to be hoped that besides such an official affirmation , the Grand Lodge Committee , before making their report , have , by all means , obtained substantial proof that it is so . However , it is argned by those who seem determined

to believe tho principles of Masonry at stako in the Grand Orient by the mere fact of tho amendment of a paragraph in its Constitution , that it is not so much for admitting men of honour aud good repute , without reference to their belief or unbelief , tha * . Grand Orient should bo censured , or even excluded from the Masonic Association , than for tho fact , the crime of having suppressed the dogmatic paragra ph which had crept in in flagrant contradiction with the true spirit of the Constitution itself . It is not necessary to remind thoso brethren