The Craft In Queensland.

reproduction of the rivalry and strife Avhich formerly prevailed in New South Wales . But is this desirable in Queensland any more than it Avas in its sister Colony ? Have we not the right to expect that the less numerous Irish and Scotch sections—though taken together it is possible they may muster more members

than the English lodges—shall respect the wishes of the English branch of the Fraternity to the extent , at all events , of not pressing the movement in favour of a united local Grand Lodge , until the English brethren , who are content that things should

remain as they are , are inclined to regard it AVith favour ? It does not seem to us to be just that the most numerous body should have forced upon it the alternative of accepting a change they do not desire , or becoming the rivals and even enemies of those with whom they have always lived on the friendliest terms .

A Clerical Attack On Freemasonry.

A CLERICAL ATTACK ON FREEMASONRY .

In our former article on this subject Ave cited the third and fourth of Canon KNOWLES'S objections of Freemasonry , the former of these being to the effect that " in theory , and partly in practice ( in spite of the respectability of its English members ) , it is one with foreign societies which are honeycombed with

infidelity ancl socialism . " To this Ave reply variously as follows . In the first place , as we have shown already , the principles of Freemasonry , as they are set forth in the authorised version of its Constitutions , are directly ancl explicitly opposed to infidelity ancl socialism . It is impossible that anything can be more

clearly stated than the condition laid down in the Old Charge concerning God and Religion that , though a man may profess Avhat religion he chooses , it is indispensable that , in order to be accepted as a Mason , he should " believe in the glorious architect of heaven and earth ; " nor can there be the slightest doubt

as to the meaning of the passages in the second Old Charge that a Mason " is never to be concerned in plots and conspiracies against the peace ancl welfare of the nation . " In this argument we are assuming that "infidelity" in this objection of Canon KNOWLES means " Atheism , " and that his " socialism" is

one and the same with the creed of those revolutionary people AVIIO impartially set themselves in opposition to every known form of settled government . At all events , Avhatever his meaning may be , ours is clear" enough , ancl it is evident from the passages Ave have quoted that , if the principles of Freemasonry are rightly understood ancl practised , the admission into its ranks of " infidels" — -that is , " atheists "—and " socialists "—that is to

say , professed ancl professing " revolutionaries —is an utter impossibility . In the second place , it is as unjust to condemn Freemasonry , because there are " foreign societies "—by these we presume the Rev . Canon means " foreign Masonic Societies "" which are honeycombed with infidelity and socialism , " as it

would be to condemn Christianity itself , because there are hundreds and thousands of professing Christians who openly and deliberately violate its principles almost every day of their lives . In his memorable speech at the installation of the Prince of WALES as Grand Master , the Earl of CARNARVON regretfull y

expressed his belief that Freemasonry as practised in some foreign countries was not one and the same with Freemasonry as defined and practised in this country . Again , in 18 77 , Avhen the Grand Orient of France resolved on eliminating from its Book

of Constitutions the canon requiring all candidates prior to their initiation to declare theirbelief in theexistenceof a Supreme Being and the doctrine of a future state , the United Grand Lodge of Enp-land at once determined its intercourse with the said

Grand Orient , ancl resolved that no trench Mason Avho refused to declare his belief in this essential principle of Freemasonry should be admitted into its lodges . The Grand Lodges of Ireland ancl Scotland , our offshoot Grand Lodges in British North America and the United States , and the Grand Lodges in Germany ,

Sweden and Norway , Denmark , and other European countries , have followed the example of England in this matter , and , therefore , with all due deference to our reverend assailant , it is untrue that Freemasonry as understood and practised in English-speaking ancl many other countries is " one with foreign societies

which are honeycombed with infidelity and socialism . " Lastly , by way of disposing finally of this objection , CANON KNOWLES must be logician enough to know that it is contrary to " the theory and practice" of logic to argue from particulars to generals . Were the principles of Freemasonry , as a whole ,

infidel and socialist , it would be just to argue that its several branches Avere of the same character . But the proposition is absolutely untenable , that because some of its branches in foreign countries are " honeycombed Avith infidelity and socialism , "

therefore the whole institution itself is imbued Avith these doctrines . We have shown that our principles are neither infidel nor socialist , and , in evidence of this fact , Ave have cited the course pursued by our Grand Lodge toAvards the Grand Orient of France when the latter eliminated belief in a Supreme

A Clerical Attack On Freemasonry.

Being from its essential articles of faith . For these reasons , Ave hold that the third of CANON KNOWLES ' S objections has no force or efficacy . As regards his fourth objection , that " the prayers of its formularies are un-Christian , " i . e ., not offered in the name of " J ESUS

our Lord , " it is manifest that the Rev . Canon does not knoAV or understand anything of the constitution of our Society , or the purposes for which it Avas established on its present basis . Had he known that Freemasonry , as constituted in I 7 i 7 , was intended to be composed of men of every kind of religious and political

faith , he Avould never have committed the grave mistake of condemning " the prayers of its formularies " on the ground of their being unchristian . He would have recognised at once that Christian prayers Avould be necessarily unacceptable to Jew , Mahommedan , and Parsee members , just as the prayers of the latter would be

unacceptable to Christian members . The founders of our modern Masonic system lived in an age when political and religious animosities were especially rife , and it Avas their belief —a belief Avhich has since been amply justified—that Freemasonry Avas capable of being constituted on such a basis as to

allow ot men of every religious and political faith enrolling themselves under its banner . It became necessary , therefore , that the prayers introduced into its formularies should be neither Christian nor Jew , Mahommedan nor Parsee , and yet at the same time that they should be expressed in such language as would

command the respect and reverence of all Avithout injuring the susceptibilities of any . However , our prayers are offered reverently to the Supreme Being in Avhom men of all religions believe , and we humbly A enture to think that such prayers , if they are preferred in a right spirit , are not preferred in vain .

It is for this reason , also , that Ave emphatically object to the Canon ' s Use of the Avords " un-Christian , " in describing these prayers . They are prayers in which everyone may join Avithout showing the slightest want of respect or reverence for the particular creed or belief he professes . They are , therefore , both

in the letter and in the spirit as little un-Christian in the sense of being contrary to the doctrines of Christianity , as they are un-Jewish , un-Mahommedan , un-Brahmin , & c , but undoubtedly they are non-Christian , as they are non-Jewish , & c , in the sense

that they do not contain any of those special forms of invocation Avhich are employed by men of those particular religious faiths . But possibly , Canon KNOWLES may have a mind to condemn all prayers addressed to the Supreme Being which are not Christian . In that case , further argument is useless .

His fifth objection is to the effect that Freemasonry " is under this dilemma : if a secret is either ( 1 ) worthless to mankind , then it is a humbug ; or ( 2 ) valuable , then it is most selfish . " To this our reply is necessarily brief . Nothing is easier than to condemn a secret Avhich may not be divulged , while those Avho

attack the secret-holder are sure of commanding a large amount of sympathy among the general body . As , however , it is only by divulging our secrets that Ave shall enable Canon KNOWLES to determine Avhether they are ( 1 ) worthless or ( 2 ) valuable , we must content ourselves Avith repeating our former statement—that

our secrets concern only ourselves in our relations to each other , Avhether Avithin or Avithout the sacred precincts of the lodge . The principles Avhich govern us in our relations to the community at large are known of all men , or easily ascertainable , and so , likewise , is the manner in which Ave observe those principles .

Moreover , Avhether the secrets of Freemasonry are valuable or otherwise , the Society itself enjoys a legal existence by virtue of its special exemption from the operation of those Acts of Parliament which have at different times been passed for the suppression of secret societies . Thus , our status as a secret

body has been clearly recognised and allowed b y the Estates of the Realm , Avhich we may reasonabl y assume Avere at the pains of satisf ying themselves , both from our published declaration of principles and the testimony of responsible Statesmen Avho Avere members of the Craft , and

though Ave most willingly concede to Canon KNOWLES his rig ht of private judgment as to the righteousness or unrig hteousness of our Order , Ave consider he has exceeded his duty as Princi pal of a Theological College in exciting a prejudice against Freemasonry in the minds of his pupils . We object to his conduct

in this respect on two grounds . In the first place , to his private and personal opinion about our Society , which is unfavourable , we are able to oppose the opinions of a host of Anglican and other clergy Avhich are favourable ; and in the second p lace , the State itself has sanctioned what he condemns .

As regards the secret or secrets and the propositions contained in the Canon ' s dilemma , Ave can onl y deny the latter in general terms . It does not follow that the keeper of a secret

which may be Avorthless to others is " a humbug , " that is , a m ^ counterfeit or impostor . There is nothing counterfeit abou Freemasonry , whose aims and objects are as well known as 1 principles . Nor is he selfish who keeps to himself knowledge