A Roman Catholic's Notion Of Freemasonry.

-when either or both of them are called into play , they have a most potent effect . The destruction of human freedom is a myth of the lecturer's . Preemasonry has no claim on the individual responsibility of its members , it is the freest possible society a man can enter , and in juxtaposition to the Eomish Churchis as light is to darkness . In

, Preemasonry there is no blind obedience to superiors , no wringing of a man ' s secret from him under the powers of the confessional , either guarded or not , by a " confiteor . " All that is imperatively demanded is hat certain words and signs be kept secret . The Masonic Order does not , and never did "

pretend to be in the possession of a secret to make men better and happier than Christ , or His Apostles , have made or can make them . " Such an assertion is untrue . Nothing in this world , devised by human agency , can make them as good or happy as being Christians . But Preemasonry can make men better and happier

than the Eomish Church . It does not persecute , it does not dogmatise , damning all without its pale , it does not proselytise , stealing away helpless children from their parents , nor does it surrender the honour of its wives and daughters to the voluptuousness of carnally minded men .

If , as Mr . Robertson asserts , " any enquiry into the doctrines and workings of the Order become utterly superfluous , " Why has he taken up the subject ? Is it one of those works of supererogation with which he is so conversant . We are inclined to think it must be and allow him the benefit of it . Witholding our secrets from the knowledge of the

lecturer ' s , " competent authority" is one of those strange ideas that cuts both ways . Just now we were told that the Order was destructive to freedom , but what would it be like if left to the tender mercies of the Komanists , the sufferings of Bro . J ohn Coustos very fully acquaint us . We did not expect Mr .

Robertson would write such nonsense , either he is a wag , or has been caught napping . Our space warns us to be more sparing of both extract ancl comment , therefore we dismiss the long tirade of quotation and assertion from Professor Robison , his book having been frequently noticed in these

pages , witli the simple fact that he admits he never attended a lodge but twice , and never went beyond the degree of a Master Mason . Tet with all his bitterness against the Order , can Mr . Robertson assert that he "betrayed one of the secrets he had entrusted to him ? No . We have no desire to assert he was

one likely to perjure himself , but we do say that he obtained certain German books which he took to be authentic , and without knowing what he wrote about , from personal experience , he committed himself to error just as Mr . Kobertson has done by citing him . Mr . Robertson talks of parliamentary institutions ' exerting an influence antagonistic to that of these

occult associations . " Perhaps he is unaware that Preemasonry is recognised and allowed by the Statute law of England , as he will find if he takes the trouble to consult " the Statute Book for the Secret Societies ' Act , of the 12 th of July , 179 S , in which there were several clauses expresslexempting Preemasonsand

y , which are yet in full force , they . having been acted " upon b y the Government within the last three years . e . - ^ bbe ' Barruei ' s work we pass over , because there is an analysis and comments on it to be found m Preston ' s Illustrations .

We must now hear Mr . Robertson again . He objects to -. — "The system of exclusive beneficence . " The practice of costly conviviality is not in itself favourable to charity ; and the sums expened by the Masons on their banquets exceed beyond comparison the monies bestowed in alms . But- this is not the point I . wish to

insist on . I speak of that restriction of charity to the brethren of the Order—a -restriction so repugnant to the spirit of Christianity , which though it assigns the first claim to those of the ' ' household of the faith , " embraces all mankind within the comprehensive range of its beneficence . "

If the domestic economy of the Order is to be objected to , it is as easily to be retorted on Mr- Kobertson that Romanists have charity dinners , and that the money spent by them in candles for the offices of their church far exceed the amount of their alms . is or does his quotation about the household of the faithtend much to advance his position .

Preema-, sonry regards all mankind with benevolent intentions , ancl relieves them , doing precisel y what Mr . Kobertson advocates , attending to her own children first .

" Then how very refined—how very exalted is the Masonic code of ethics ! The Mason is enjoined not to practise the arts of seduction on any members of the family of a brother Mason ' . So this broth . evb . oocl , not content with restricting the precept of charity , restricts that of purity—a restriction which , I clo not hesitate to say , the better heathenism would have spurned ; for it based

moralifcy , not on the conventional rules of any society , but on the eternal and immutable laws of God . I may add , that such arbitrary restrictions throw ridicule on the Divine precept , and , so far from checking , tend to promote sensuality . "

As to the sneer about purit y in the above , if he will turn to Halliwell ' s book ( p . 25 ) , or Cooke ' s book ( pp . 126-7 ) , he will find the law set out in both , and , as before proved , they were both penned by Komanists , whose code of ethics must have been quite as exalted as ours .

" Sow , as to the constitution of this Order , it is divided into thirt 3 r -three oracles ; but its main degrees are six , that of Apprentice—of Fellow Craft—of Master—of Elect—of Eosicrncian—and of Kadosch . There is a distinct ceremonial , signs of recognition , pass-words , ancl grips , lor each degree . This great quantity of degrees , and their dependence and subordination , are calculated to insure secrecy , as well as augment the numbers , wealth , and influence of the Order . "

In this paragrapn Mr . Kobertson has discovered nothing new . Any Preemason would have told him that there were thirty-three degrees , with different ceremonials for each . If this number of degrees shock the author of the lecture , he has only to look within his own communion for a parallel case . The orders of monksfriarsnuns & care quite as

nume-, , , , rous , and their rules of obedience and profession quite as restricted as ours , therefore , if this be a blameable proceeding on our part , it is equally culpable on the side of the Komanists . Our Templar brethren are so well acquainted with their own history , that there is no occasion for us to

enter upon it here . Mr . Roberstson looks upon the Templars as an evil brotherhood , and rakes up the old accusation , against them , which have been refuted time out of mind . To enable him to do this he quotes the following- fiction of the Abbe Barruel .