Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Correspondents . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications . All Letters must bear the name and address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , but as a guarantee of good faith .

GRAND ORIENT AND ENGLISH FREEMASONRY . To the Editor of TnE FREEMASON ' S CHRONICLE .

DEAU SIR AND BROTHER , —I yield to nono in my admiration of Bro . Norton and his courageous advocacy of Masonio interests , but I must confess that I fail to seo in what vospect he has succeeded in jiistifyinrj the recent action of tho French Grand Orient . In my humble opinion , that body has seriously jeopardised the

safety of tho Craft Universal ; not hy reason of its firm and nnalterablo opposition to sectarianism , for to this Freemasonry has always been a determined opponent , but because it now sanctions the admission of thoso who have no religions belief whatever . My argument , roughly stated , amounts to this : Freemasonry is essentially unsectarian as regards religion , while in tho

matter of government it is its bounden duty to respect all forms thereof alike , but thero must be somo kind of religion and somo form of government to start with . In other words , there must be somo kind of general basis or gronndworlc for tho superstructure of Freemasonry to rest upon . Clearly it is incapablo of resting on nothing , and tho negation of God in things divine , like the negation of government in

things human , implies the existence of " nothing . " T cannot logically arrivo at the conclusion that tho earth mado itself , or to put it plainly , was its own creatrix as Avell as the creatrix of everything on tho face thereof that lives , and moves , and has its beinsr . Rejecting this idea as being utterly untenable , I must go further afield , and look for my Creator in what Bro . Thevenot calls " A Supremo Law , or a

Supremo Being . " Well , I am no materialist , and for this reason I cannot conceive of any law , supremo or otherwise , which is not tho work of somo agent . If thero is a Supreme Law , then I take it there must bo in the background a Supreme Being who framed that Law . I must be inverting what is commonly known as the natural order of things when I deify the product , and deny the attribute of

divinity to the producer , when I hononr the act , while I dishonour tho agent . I decline therefore , in common with the bulk of mankind , to accept a Supremo Law , except as the expression of a Supreme will , emanating from a Supremo Being . In other Avords , I accept what is accepted of all men , save the lowest and most debased savages , on tho one hand , and a foolish few among civilised men who claim to

possess a moro than human intelligence on the other . I helievo in the existence of God , and so believing , I fail to see how it is possiblo for any ono to bo a true and genuine member of the Masonic brotherhood who has in him no senso of religion . As regards sectarianism in Freemasonry , I am as strongly opposed to it as Bro . Norton , but tho question raised by tho

act of tho Grand Orient of France , in striking out the most important of tbo Masonic landmarks , is entirely of a different character . What moro can English Freemasonry do towards vindicating the purity of its principles than accept reputable candidates , be their religions views Avhat they may ? It must first of all bo shown that infidels , that is , men without any sense of religion ,

aro a religious sect , before tho Grand Lodge of England can bo justly opened to tho charge of sectarianism . That thero are limits to tho doctrino of Masonic Universality is proved by tho daily practico of every branch of tho Masonic community . For instance , immoral peoplo aro ineligible ; and why , I ask , shonld irreligious peoplo stand on a better footing than tho immoral ?

In answer , I shall be met by tho old stock argument that Freemasonry is a morality , not a religion ; to which , of course , I retort , that there can be no morality which is not grounded on religion . I hold with Lord Carnarvon that if tho sense of religion is struck out of our Masonic system , then all our rites and ceremonies aro meaningless . Moreover , Bro . Norton has himself imposed a limit on his idea of

Universality , for he says the design of Masonry " is to bring together good and true men of all religious denominations , that each may sec that goodness and virtue arc not monopolised by his Church . " Thus , he excludes men Avhoareof no religious denomination , or else I must fix him on the other horn of the dilemma , and imagine he includes persons of this class as constituting a religious denomination .

As regards " Bro . M . B . ' s " letter in your last issue , it is in part a laudation of Bro . Norton , and in part an echo of his opinions . But how shall I reconcile that writer ' s statement "that , prior to tho year 1819 , no snch dogmatic affirmation as tho one amended ever existed in tho letter of the Constitutntion , " with the previously-quoted words of Bro . Thovenot , that " nothing has been changed in tho practice of

French Masonry ? , " Fossibly Bro . Thevenot means that , whereas from 1819 till 1877 tho Constitutions and practice of French Masonry were at variance , tho former have now been brought into complete harmony with tho latter . That is , the practice remains unchanged , while it is tho Constitutions which have been altered . But we in England ha \ 'o nothing to guide us in forming au opinion as to tho character of

French Masonry , except their Constitutions ; and just as AVO regard our Constitutions as embodying the true principles of English Masonry , so wo consider thoso of our French brethren contain the true official exposition of French Masonic principles . Now , we are told that the retention of the famous Masonic motto is optional , not obligatory ; that

it may bo interpreted quite as mnch in a " scientific and philosophic " senso , as in a " religious . " I may be wrong , bnt I humbly submit that this involves some change " in the practice of French Masonry , " especially when I infer , from a sentence in Bro . Tlievcnot ' s letter to Bro . Dr . Loth , that the retention of the formula as a reli gious motto has led to some very regrettable discussions . I do not suppose the

Correspondence.

Grand Orient , in amending its Constitutions , Avas animated by hostility to belief in God ; but it cannot be denied that tho elision of the essential principle of Freemasonry from its laws places Frenoh Masonry on an entirely different footing , and indeed cuts it off from all sympathy with thoso branches of the Craft which still retain that essential principle . In fact , French Masonry is a kind of learned

Benevolent Institution , and nothing more . At all events , it has ceased to havo anything in common with tho Freemasonry of Anderson , Payne , and Desagnliors in the ono important particular which has formed the subject of so much discussion in the columns of tho CHRONICLE and elsewhere ; and French Masonry has , I repeat , no cause to feel aggrieved if wo fail to see in it , in its altered conditions , any

resemblance to tho Freemasonry of our own land . To enter into all the arguments for the purpose of showing that Freemasonry vests on a relisions basis , and that , consequently , while it freely admits into its temples reputable persons of all creeds , it has no room for the man of no rel igion , would occupy far move time than I could afford to bestow , and more space than yon wonld bo

justified in allotting me . Having , therefore , duo regard to theso two considerations , I am obliged to seem dogmatic when I would far rather appear argumentative . Still I havo endeavoured to place my views clearly before yon and your readers , and I think those views , in respect of their main features at all events , are accepted bvall English brethren , and by an overwhelming majority of brethren

in other countries . I say theso are tho views enunciated by the fonnders of speculative Freemasonry , who were all Englishmen , either native born or adopted . As regards any inroads into the original system as propounded by them , the removal of onr ancient landmarks , or any perversion of Freemasonry from its original scope as defined by them , wo are assuredly not the least interested , or the

least capablo interpreters . If others are pleased to formulate a system of Freemasonry of their OAVU , we cannot reasonably object to thoir doing so ; but wo can and do object , and with very good reason , to acknowledge them as "true and genuine members of the fraternity . " We should not bo true-hearted Masons if we did not express regret when we hear of this or that section of the

brotherhood withdrawing itself from our community , or compelling the othor sections to withhold further intercourse with it . At the same time , wc should fail in our duty if we did not stand by the good old Craft in its hour of danger or difficulty , and do onr ntmost to vindicate its character to be a purely moral and unsectarian religions body . This

is tho least wo can do in snch circumstances , and if wo fulfil onr dnty loyally , I think we need have no fear for the future triumph of Freemasonry over all its enemies . I must apologiso for troubling you once more , and remain , as always , Your Servant and Brothor , TOLERANCE .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —Having had the hononr and privilego of being a Freemason for many years , I havo always regarded the Craft as tho most noblo , free , and universal of all Institutions ; but aftor reading the account of tho Proceedings of the Quarterly Communica . tion of Grand Lodgo held on Wednesday the Gth inst ., I must confess

that Freemasonry appears to bo a very different thing from what I have always been tanght to believe it is . The pain which I felt n -on a perusal , in your journal , of the reso . lutions carried by Grand Lodge with respect to our French brethren was quite eqnalled by my astonishment . Tho faots are simply as follow : The Grand Orient of France , in order to respect the feelings of every

good and true man , has decided that in future a candidate shall not be forced to pledge his word that he believes in certain dogmas about which , possibly , he may havo some doubt . That august body has therefore decided to leave out the words relating to the existence of God and tho immortality of the soul . As to the first , every one believes in God , in some form or other ;" wc in England believe in one

God , our brethren in India , China , and elsewhere , in somo othertotally different it may be—nevertheless , I repeat , they all believe in a God , a Supremo Ruler , a Great Architect ; but a man Avho believes in Buddha would doubtless hesitate iu an English or a French Lodgo to declare his belief in God , and upon this principle the Grand Orient of Franco has resolved to " eliminato tho name of the G . A . O . T . U .

from its Ritual . " As to the second elimination , it is well known that a large proportion of our Jewish brethren do not believe in the itn . mortality of the soul , bnt I was never in a Lodge where an Israelite was refused permission to enter it upon this account . With tho greatest respect for the M . W . Pro Grand Mastor , I must say that I think ho put the resolutions to Grand Lodge in a manner

not altogether impartial : ho treated it as a foregone conclusion that all present would voto with him ; he said , " I believe that there can be but one feeling and ono voice in this Grand Lodge . " A « ain , "I apprehend that thero can bo no objection in this Grand Lodge , & c . " and again , "I trtist that it will be in tho power of Grand Lndire to vote unanimously . " If these remarks had not been made , I believe

much could and would have been said on the other side . It appears to mo that this act of Grand Lodge is calculated to undermine tho ancient and noble institution of Freemasonry ; it undoubtedly will impair its usefulness , and diminish its popularity and universality ; and tho enemies of Freemasonry Avill hail with deli ght this act of dictatorial harshness , as well as weakness , emanating from a body where charit y and freedom ought to be paramount . The

Grand Lodge actually objects to " absolute liberty of conscienco !" Then , may wo not ask . is Masonry any longer free ? Has his Lordship forgotten how to answer the question , " Who aro fit and proper persons to be mado Masons ? " if so , it wonld be well to remind tho noble Earl that there is not a word in the reply relating either to God or tho soul . Can it be possible that the members of Gmntl Lodge have also forgotten , " What are tho three grand principles upon which the Order is founded ? "