-
Articles/Ads
Article CORRESPONDENCE. Page 1 of 2 Article CORRESPONDENCE. Page 1 of 2 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Correspondence.
CORRESPONDENCE .
We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Correspondents . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications . AU Letters must bear the name and address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , bid as a guarantee of good faith .
BRO . J . NORTON AND " TOLERANCE
To the Editor of THE FREEMASON S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I fully anticipated , when I wroto the letter you were kind enough " to publish in your iasuo of tho 5 th January , a rejoinder from my worthy and respected Bro . Jacob Norton . Having thus entered into a friendly conflict of words with so doughty a disputant , with a full knowledge of tho consequences
that awaited me , I must pay tho penalty of my audacity , and endeavour to meet his argument to the best of my ability . However , Bro . Norton , if a powerful , is likewiso a courteous , antagonist . I am confident he will givo tho arguments I may adduce in support of my thesis a great deal more of his valuablo consideration than they merit , and if he thinks it desirable , with yonr kind permission , to reply to them ,
that ho will do his best to meet them in a judicial spirit . Havine thus , after the manner of a man about to engage in a friendl y bout with the foils , saluted my opponent—whom , by tho way , I would willingly and most fraternally embrace , if my arms were long enough , to reach from London to Bostou U . S . —I must now botako myself to my serious task of breaking , if possiblo , through his guard , and
disarming him . It is natural I should feel somewhat nervous during the first few passes , but I must do the best I can ; and if I only succeed in gaining tho sympathy and applanso of your readers , as I fancy I have already gained tho respect of my antagonist , I shall bo satisfied . Let mo , first of all , state why I made no referenco in my former lettor to the German question . Bro . Norton ' s communication , to
which I attempted a reply , was entitled "A Plea on Behalf of the Grand Orient of France , " and to the recent action of that Grand Body , I accordingly confined the remarks I offered . If , however , it will be any satisfaction to Bro . Norton to learn my opinion on the conduct of the Berlin Grand Lodge of the Threo Globes in excluding Jews from tho Lodges under its jurisdiction , I say at once , that I think it
worthy of tho strongest condemnation . Tho error , however , lies in exactly the opposite direction ; in other words , France is too In . v , and Germany is too exclusive Having said this , I pass to Bro . Norton ' s rejoinder in respect of the French , question . Permit mo to begin by pointing out that Bro . Norton appears not to have exactly understood the drift of my argument or illustration as
to annrchists and atheists . I did not tako " it for art-anted" that anarchists as woll as atheists wore respected among tho first circles of society , on account of thoir high intellectual standing . I argued that there aro anarchists as well as atheists in tho world who , it is as reasonable to supposo , may bo much sought after in society by reason , not of their anarchical tendencies , but of
thoir high intellectual attainments , and because , in the ordinary senso of the word , they aro patterns of morality . Bnt I urged the bulk of mankind is archical as it is theistio ; and though socioty may admire , and even run after such as atheists when they aro known to possess great mental powers and the strictest morality , in its limited sense , nevertheless , it would not be guilty of so egregious an act of
folly as to conntenanco in any way their eccentric and senseless opinion in respect of government and religion . There is a vast difference between hearing what a man has to say on any subject , and admiring him for tho ability with which he says it , or accepting as beyond tho possibility of controversy the opinions ho enunciates . I may go into a Jewish Synagogue , and listen with
pleasure to tbe service and tho teachings of tho priesthood . I may enter a Roman Catholic Church , and be edified by the sermon . I may visit the salon frequented by somo noted anarchist , and hear what he has to say on the evils of government . I go from a friendly feeling , or it may be from a senso of curiosity , but in none of the cases I have cited does it follow that I approvo or accept the doctrines I hoar
laid down . Similarly I may read works on anarchy and atheism , but it does not follow that I do so because I sympathise with , or approve of the opinions I find recorded in them . But the case is qnito different when I go out of my way to sanction the admission of atheists and anarchists into a Society which if it is not theistic and archical , has no raison d ' etre whatever . Then I directly , and so
to speak , officially , countenance their views . I have too much senso to imagine that the admission of a few atheists and anarchists into our Society will athcise or anarchise it , as Bro . Norton would say ; but , when I admit them , or I should say by my very act of admitting them , I deliberately insult my own common sense , and that of the bulk of mankind throngh all ages , I do an almost irremediable wron "
to the Society I lovo and respect so much . I allow there is the possibility that their creed as to religion aud government may be right and ours wrong . I to a certain extent endorse with the respectability of our own viows , opinions which , it is known , aro false . I lie , in the teeth of my own convictions , and deserve the reprobation of all honest and honourablo men . I proclaim , in fact , that God
himself was a liar , when , by tho mouth of Hi ' s own inspired servant , he declared : "Tho fool hath said in his heart , There is no God . " This is the sin lam guilty of when I admit theso outlaws against religion and government into my society . I have , of conrse , my own private convictions as to which is the best form of religion , and which
the best mode of government ; and , as I claim the right to hold my own particular viows on these qnestions , so I willingly nccord to others the same right . Moreover , as I know beforehand , that other members of my Society differ and will continue to differ with me as to which are the best forms of religion and government , I provide against tho possibility of these differences of opinion being the cause of
Correspondence.
offence to any one ; and I say , when assembled together as a society , there shall bo no religions or political disputations . We aro agreed up fo this point , that everybody must believe in the existence of God , and that somo kind of government is indispensible , and we wisely provide in our ceremonies a formula expressing this belief , bnt in words to which it is impossible for any person , be his religions or
oolitical tendencies what they may , to take exception . Only an atheist or an anarchist could raise evou the mildost objection to onr simplo and unpretending declaration of faith in God and obedience to the law ; and this class of persons , how interesting soever they may be as types of a certain class of tho animal man , not originally included by God in the category of 'His creatures , is , in the opinion
of all just and upright men , outside the palo of our and every other honourable society . Wo should bo degraded below the level of the more bruto if wo accepted tho communist—which is only another term for anarchist—as worthy of being admitted into our society . Wo should descend , if possible , still lower , were wo to allow that an atheist was oligiblo into a theistio socioty . I hold still that my
argument , as set forth in yonr issnoof the 5 th January , is a jnstone , and that an atheist by virtuo of his irreligion , and an anarchist by virfcuo of his unbelief in tho necessity for government of any kind aro , in very truth , on tho samo footing—they are ineligible into the Fratornity of Masons , a body which is naturally theistio and irchical .
I now approach another part of the question between Bro . Norton aud myself . I laid it down in my former letter that "there can bo no morality which is not based on theism . " Bro . Norton ' s opinion is " morality as well as immorality aro independent of belief even in Deism , " and he adduces in support of such view the experiences of prison chaplains , tho lust and crimes of King David , and tho
irreconcilability of teaching with practice among American brethren . I must presume that I do not consider myself competent to enact tho rule of counsel for tho defence in these cases ; but if I wero forced into that position I should adviso my client to plead guilty , at all events in the case of King David in respect of his lust and crimos , and my American brothren for the alleged inconsistencies between
their preaching and their practico which Bro . Norton denounces . And more than this , I should urgo them to throw themselves on the mercy of the court before whom they wei * e summoned , and plead for leniency , on the simple ground that as a poet has phrased it , "to err is human , to forgive divine . " Bnt setting apart these con . siderations , which I hold aro foreign to tho material question at
issue , I can see there is a serious difference between Bro . Norton and myself as to the senso in which we severally use tho word " morality . " He , it is evident , uses it in its ordinarily accepted meaning . His notion of a moral man is the ordinary oue , namely , that he is ono who is honest , that is , who will not appropriate to his own uses another person ' s goods ; who will pay every debt ho may
contract with his neighbour ; who does not hanker lustfully after his neighbour's wife or danghter ; who will not assault his neighbour for differing with him ; who will not conceal his true enmity under tho mask of friendship ; who , in short , will not do any of thoso things which are commonly accounted of men as , in tho narrowest meauing of the word , immoral . The senso in which I used tho word
" morality , when I said " there can bono morality which is not based on theism , " vastly transcends tho moaning which apparently Bro . Norton assigns to it , when he affirms that " morality , as well as immorality , aro independent of belief even in Deism . " I tako it to include tho whole duty of man , in the sense in which such duty is described at length by Aristotle in his Ethics , or by Cicero in his
treatise De Offdciis . I fear I must acknowledge that my acquaint , ance with these invaluable works is rusty as compared with what it was some five-and-twonty years ago . Yet do I think my memory serves me right when I affirm that these two philosophers , each in hia own particular treatise , inculcate alike tho study and practice of virtue in the fullest and most unrestricted senso of the word , or in
fact all thoso duties which arc associated with or assigned to man in his relation to tho Godhead , the state , and himself . I do not see how it is possible for a man to regulate his duty towards himself without considering the state of which he is a unit . I am unablo to comprehend how ho can fully understand his duty towards the stato without having some regard for tho world of states of which tho one ho
belongs to is only a part . I fail to appreciate how ho can justly define his duty towards this world of states , or , in other words , towards tho whole of human kind , unless he has somo sense of respect for the Being by whom the universe , of which our world is only a part , was created . It was in this sense I used tho word " morality , " when I said it was based on theism . It is in thi 3 sense I believe it is used
among Masons , when they defiue Freemasonry to be a system of morality ; and if I need a warrant for this opinion , I do not think I need go further than the charge administered to a candidate at his initiation into tho mysteries of tho first degree according to onr ritual . So , again , I hold that Anderson , in excluding from the society of Freemasons both "the stupid atheist" and
"the irreligions libertine , " did not mean thereby only the man who lacked common sense or ordinary morality . I see nothing incongruous or incomprehensible in a " stnpid atheist" being at the same timo a very able mathematician , a distinguished astronomer or gee logist , or an eminent man of letters ; nor , iu my opinion , is thero anything strange in an "irreligions libertine" being a model of
chastity , sobriety , or of what is commonly adjudged to be " morality . " Words after all have only a relative meaning , and we must define the sense in which they are used by different people before we attempt to show whether their statements are reconcileable or not . In the argument between Bro . Norton and myself this is absolutely necessary , ns regards the word ' moralitv , " and the phrases " stupid atheist "
and " irreligions libertine . " Ho nses them in their common every , day senso . I , as I havo endcavonrcd to point out in this letter , have used them in their fnllesfc sense . I consider " morality , " as used in our Masonic Constitutions , applies to the whole duties of man in relation to his Creator and fellow-cicatures , and not merely to tho practice of certain virtues , such as temperance , charity , and the like .
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Correspondence.
CORRESPONDENCE .
We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Correspondents . We cannot undertake to return rejected communications . AU Letters must bear the name and address of the Writer , not necessarily for publication , bid as a guarantee of good faith .
BRO . J . NORTON AND " TOLERANCE
To the Editor of THE FREEMASON S CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I fully anticipated , when I wroto the letter you were kind enough " to publish in your iasuo of tho 5 th January , a rejoinder from my worthy and respected Bro . Jacob Norton . Having thus entered into a friendly conflict of words with so doughty a disputant , with a full knowledge of tho consequences
that awaited me , I must pay tho penalty of my audacity , and endeavour to meet his argument to the best of my ability . However , Bro . Norton , if a powerful , is likewiso a courteous , antagonist . I am confident he will givo tho arguments I may adduce in support of my thesis a great deal more of his valuablo consideration than they merit , and if he thinks it desirable , with yonr kind permission , to reply to them ,
that ho will do his best to meet them in a judicial spirit . Havine thus , after the manner of a man about to engage in a friendl y bout with the foils , saluted my opponent—whom , by tho way , I would willingly and most fraternally embrace , if my arms were long enough , to reach from London to Bostou U . S . —I must now botako myself to my serious task of breaking , if possiblo , through his guard , and
disarming him . It is natural I should feel somewhat nervous during the first few passes , but I must do the best I can ; and if I only succeed in gaining tho sympathy and applanso of your readers , as I fancy I have already gained tho respect of my antagonist , I shall bo satisfied . Let mo , first of all , state why I made no referenco in my former lettor to the German question . Bro . Norton ' s communication , to
which I attempted a reply , was entitled "A Plea on Behalf of the Grand Orient of France , " and to the recent action of that Grand Body , I accordingly confined the remarks I offered . If , however , it will be any satisfaction to Bro . Norton to learn my opinion on the conduct of the Berlin Grand Lodge of the Threo Globes in excluding Jews from tho Lodges under its jurisdiction , I say at once , that I think it
worthy of tho strongest condemnation . Tho error , however , lies in exactly the opposite direction ; in other words , France is too In . v , and Germany is too exclusive Having said this , I pass to Bro . Norton ' s rejoinder in respect of the French , question . Permit mo to begin by pointing out that Bro . Norton appears not to have exactly understood the drift of my argument or illustration as
to annrchists and atheists . I did not tako " it for art-anted" that anarchists as woll as atheists wore respected among tho first circles of society , on account of thoir high intellectual standing . I argued that there aro anarchists as well as atheists in tho world who , it is as reasonable to supposo , may bo much sought after in society by reason , not of their anarchical tendencies , but of
thoir high intellectual attainments , and because , in the ordinary senso of the word , they aro patterns of morality . Bnt I urged the bulk of mankind is archical as it is theistio ; and though socioty may admire , and even run after such as atheists when they aro known to possess great mental powers and the strictest morality , in its limited sense , nevertheless , it would not be guilty of so egregious an act of
folly as to conntenanco in any way their eccentric and senseless opinion in respect of government and religion . There is a vast difference between hearing what a man has to say on any subject , and admiring him for tho ability with which he says it , or accepting as beyond tho possibility of controversy the opinions ho enunciates . I may go into a Jewish Synagogue , and listen with
pleasure to tbe service and tho teachings of tho priesthood . I may enter a Roman Catholic Church , and be edified by the sermon . I may visit the salon frequented by somo noted anarchist , and hear what he has to say on the evils of government . I go from a friendly feeling , or it may be from a senso of curiosity , but in none of the cases I have cited does it follow that I approvo or accept the doctrines I hoar
laid down . Similarly I may read works on anarchy and atheism , but it does not follow that I do so because I sympathise with , or approve of the opinions I find recorded in them . But the case is qnito different when I go out of my way to sanction the admission of atheists and anarchists into a Society which if it is not theistic and archical , has no raison d ' etre whatever . Then I directly , and so
to speak , officially , countenance their views . I have too much senso to imagine that the admission of a few atheists and anarchists into our Society will athcise or anarchise it , as Bro . Norton would say ; but , when I admit them , or I should say by my very act of admitting them , I deliberately insult my own common sense , and that of the bulk of mankind throngh all ages , I do an almost irremediable wron "
to the Society I lovo and respect so much . I allow there is the possibility that their creed as to religion aud government may be right and ours wrong . I to a certain extent endorse with the respectability of our own viows , opinions which , it is known , aro false . I lie , in the teeth of my own convictions , and deserve the reprobation of all honest and honourablo men . I proclaim , in fact , that God
himself was a liar , when , by tho mouth of Hi ' s own inspired servant , he declared : "Tho fool hath said in his heart , There is no God . " This is the sin lam guilty of when I admit theso outlaws against religion and government into my society . I have , of conrse , my own private convictions as to which is the best form of religion , and which
the best mode of government ; and , as I claim the right to hold my own particular viows on these qnestions , so I willingly nccord to others the same right . Moreover , as I know beforehand , that other members of my Society differ and will continue to differ with me as to which are the best forms of religion and government , I provide against tho possibility of these differences of opinion being the cause of
Correspondence.
offence to any one ; and I say , when assembled together as a society , there shall bo no religions or political disputations . We aro agreed up fo this point , that everybody must believe in the existence of God , and that somo kind of government is indispensible , and we wisely provide in our ceremonies a formula expressing this belief , bnt in words to which it is impossible for any person , be his religions or
oolitical tendencies what they may , to take exception . Only an atheist or an anarchist could raise evou the mildost objection to onr simplo and unpretending declaration of faith in God and obedience to the law ; and this class of persons , how interesting soever they may be as types of a certain class of tho animal man , not originally included by God in the category of 'His creatures , is , in the opinion
of all just and upright men , outside the palo of our and every other honourable society . Wo should bo degraded below the level of the more bruto if wo accepted tho communist—which is only another term for anarchist—as worthy of being admitted into our society . Wo should descend , if possible , still lower , were wo to allow that an atheist was oligiblo into a theistio socioty . I hold still that my
argument , as set forth in yonr issnoof the 5 th January , is a jnstone , and that an atheist by virtuo of his irreligion , and an anarchist by virfcuo of his unbelief in tho necessity for government of any kind aro , in very truth , on tho samo footing—they are ineligible into the Fratornity of Masons , a body which is naturally theistio and irchical .
I now approach another part of the question between Bro . Norton aud myself . I laid it down in my former letter that "there can bo no morality which is not based on theism . " Bro . Norton ' s opinion is " morality as well as immorality aro independent of belief even in Deism , " and he adduces in support of such view the experiences of prison chaplains , tho lust and crimes of King David , and tho
irreconcilability of teaching with practice among American brethren . I must presume that I do not consider myself competent to enact tho rule of counsel for tho defence in these cases ; but if I wero forced into that position I should adviso my client to plead guilty , at all events in the case of King David in respect of his lust and crimos , and my American brothren for the alleged inconsistencies between
their preaching and their practico which Bro . Norton denounces . And more than this , I should urgo them to throw themselves on the mercy of the court before whom they wei * e summoned , and plead for leniency , on the simple ground that as a poet has phrased it , "to err is human , to forgive divine . " Bnt setting apart these con . siderations , which I hold aro foreign to tho material question at
issue , I can see there is a serious difference between Bro . Norton and myself as to the senso in which we severally use tho word " morality . " He , it is evident , uses it in its ordinarily accepted meaning . His notion of a moral man is the ordinary oue , namely , that he is ono who is honest , that is , who will not appropriate to his own uses another person ' s goods ; who will pay every debt ho may
contract with his neighbour ; who does not hanker lustfully after his neighbour's wife or danghter ; who will not assault his neighbour for differing with him ; who will not conceal his true enmity under tho mask of friendship ; who , in short , will not do any of thoso things which are commonly accounted of men as , in tho narrowest meauing of the word , immoral . The senso in which I used tho word
" morality , when I said " there can bono morality which is not based on theism , " vastly transcends tho moaning which apparently Bro . Norton assigns to it , when he affirms that " morality , as well as immorality , aro independent of belief even in Deism . " I tako it to include tho whole duty of man , in the sense in which such duty is described at length by Aristotle in his Ethics , or by Cicero in his
treatise De Offdciis . I fear I must acknowledge that my acquaint , ance with these invaluable works is rusty as compared with what it was some five-and-twonty years ago . Yet do I think my memory serves me right when I affirm that these two philosophers , each in hia own particular treatise , inculcate alike tho study and practice of virtue in the fullest and most unrestricted senso of the word , or in
fact all thoso duties which arc associated with or assigned to man in his relation to tho Godhead , the state , and himself . I do not see how it is possible for a man to regulate his duty towards himself without considering the state of which he is a unit . I am unablo to comprehend how ho can fully understand his duty towards the stato without having some regard for tho world of states of which tho one ho
belongs to is only a part . I fail to appreciate how ho can justly define his duty towards this world of states , or , in other words , towards tho whole of human kind , unless he has somo sense of respect for the Being by whom the universe , of which our world is only a part , was created . It was in this sense I used tho word " morality , " when I said it was based on theism . It is in thi 3 sense I believe it is used
among Masons , when they defiue Freemasonry to be a system of morality ; and if I need a warrant for this opinion , I do not think I need go further than the charge administered to a candidate at his initiation into tho mysteries of tho first degree according to onr ritual . So , again , I hold that Anderson , in excluding from the society of Freemasons both "the stupid atheist" and
"the irreligions libertine , " did not mean thereby only the man who lacked common sense or ordinary morality . I see nothing incongruous or incomprehensible in a " stnpid atheist" being at the same timo a very able mathematician , a distinguished astronomer or gee logist , or an eminent man of letters ; nor , iu my opinion , is thero anything strange in an "irreligions libertine" being a model of
chastity , sobriety , or of what is commonly adjudged to be " morality . " Words after all have only a relative meaning , and we must define the sense in which they are used by different people before we attempt to show whether their statements are reconcileable or not . In the argument between Bro . Norton and myself this is absolutely necessary , ns regards the word ' moralitv , " and the phrases " stupid atheist "
and " irreligions libertine . " Ho nses them in their common every , day senso . I , as I havo endcavonrcd to point out in this letter , have used them in their fnllesfc sense . I consider " morality , " as used in our Masonic Constitutions , applies to the whole duties of man in relation to his Creator and fellow-cicatures , and not merely to tho practice of certain virtues , such as temperance , charity , and the like .