Criticism Of Masonry.

CRITICISM OF MASONRY .

THE letter we publish below , from a recent issue of the " Tablet , " is deserving of passing notice , firstly as affording proof of the very flimsy evidence on which opponents of the Craft may base their criticism , and secondly as showing how the innocent use of the name of Masonry in connection with

proceedings entirely unconnected with the Order may be seized upon by its detractors , in support of their tirades against us . Here we have a building erected in the south of London , under the title of the Surrey Masonic Hall , which , as we believe

will be generally admitted , has been of marked benefit to Freemasonry in its district , but the accommodation it provides is not wholly monopolised for Masonic uses , the consequence being that—as in the case in point—it is often let for other

purposes , sometimes for meetings directly opposed to Masonic principles , as for instance , when discussions of a religious or political nature are arranged for—which subjects , it is well known , are specially excluded from consideration within the

portals of our Masonic Lodges . But in all these cases , no matter how much the meeting may be opposed to the dictates of the Craft , the same description of the building is used , and

the work for the time being may be associated with Freemasonry , on account of the name " Surrey Masonic Hall" having been adopted in connection with the building , provided such a connection is desired .

It is not possible for us to examine the thoughts of the writer of the letter to our contemporary when he penned hia epistle , but in view of the knowledge he displays on other points it is unfair to think he does not know the position of affairs we

have just spoken of in connection with this Masonic Hall . We are prepared to allow that all is fair in love and war , but a writer who is so wilfully ignorant in regard to questions he deals with as Mr . Lee is in this instance , must not grumble if his

whole utterances are guaged by the known quantity of ignorance he displays on one of the issues . In fact his whole arguments are nullified by recognition of the fact that the holding of a meeting in a building bearing a Masonic name does not

necessarily associate Freemasonry with what then takes place . Let us assume a possible case that may be within the range of this correspondent ' s perception , by reason of its association with the creed he professes : let us imagine that the Pope or some

high dignitary of his Church has granted the use of a building , bearing an unmistakable Catholic name , for some meeting wholly distinct from Church matters—and in the exercise of the true spirit of charity we know most Eoman Catholics

possess such a supposition is a reasonable one—what would Mr . Lee say if it were sought to make the Pope or his followers answerable for all that was said at the meeting ? We cannot

believe anyone but a fanatic would seek to place such a responsibility on the heads of the Eomish Church , neither can we imagine anyone but a fanatic writing on the assumption that utterances made at a meeting held in a Masonic Hall must of necessity be Masonic .

Criticism Of Masonry.

The second point we have spoken of leads us to ask how far it is desirable to permit the use of Masonic titles for purely public buildings ? but here we are at once met with a difficulty , and that , too , an insurmountable one , inasmuch as it is virtually

impossible to prevent the use of Masonic names , even if there was any wish to do so ; but in the vast majority of cases there is really no need or desire for prohibition , men of the world clearly understanding that the mere name has little to do with what

goes on under the roof of the building concerned . This is amply demonstrated in many ways outside the Craft , in fact no public personage or body of men appears to be proof against such

evidence of popularity , it only being necessary to refer to such instances as " Her Majesty ' s , " or other similarly named Theatres , with innumerable other like instances , to demonstrate this .

Would the Editor of the " Tablet" have inserted the letter of his correspondent if in place of " Masonic " the title had been " Her Majesty ' s , " and if in place of Freemasonry the writer had thought fit to make the Queen answerable for the remarks used ?

In such a case the letter would probably have been treated as the work of a lunatic , but because the Eomish Church thinks fit to oppose Freemasonry , any attack upon it or its members is

good enough for publicity—although in giving prominence to such absurdities as that under notice it seems to us those who object to the Craft lay themselves open to ridicule , and show the weakness of the cause they espouse .

To the Editor of the " Tablet . " SIR , —It has often been remarked that English Freemasonry does not assail Christianity , and that whatever evils of that nature exist abroad , none of any grave importance are working here . Such opinions have never been held by me ; for I have the strongest objection to Freemasonry , because it sets up in the world a coherent unity in direct opposition to that of the Catholic Church , and is always thoroughly anti-Christian .

Quite recently m the Surrey Masonic Hall—to give a , recent example—a certain " Dr . Stanton Coit" spoke thus at a " Sunday evening service or gathering for the people " : " When Huxley died thero was read over his body at the cemetery , the Church of England burial service . When he ( the speaker ) read this in the newspapers , ho could not but feel that an act of sacrilege had been committed . That a man who had fought and taught

against the view of life expressed in that service should be forced into such an ignominy as to have this wordy rigmarole read over his remains was to him incomparably distasteful . . . AU Huxley's life was a fight against what he called ' clericalism ' —implying priests , bishops , and every ecclesiastical authority . . . Huxley never believed in the ' sure and certain hope of a joyful resurrection , ' but held that scepticism was ' the highest of all

duties . ' ... In his discussions , Huxley always came out ahead . With a whip of small cords he drove the people out of the Temple where science should have dwelt . . . . Even Voltaire could not approach him . A few centuries hence he would be recognised as the one fine figure in English literature who devoted his whole life to the one sublime duty of opposing in principle the priests and authorities , even the lawgivers and popular educators , who had tried to suppress his sublime truths . Huxley was . a

great prophet and ought to be placed beside St . Paul and Thomas a Kempis . " Some parts of this sermon and lecture cannot with prudence he reproduced , but the sentences above serve to show what is actually but quietly being carried out around us ; and this often under the patronage of those who are Freemasons -many of them Anglican clergy—and at so-called " services for the working classes . "

Ordinary newspaper reporters , while advertising such lectures by their summaries , practically advance the odious and detestable principles of the preachers themselves . Such atrocious utterances should be noted . Has not the time come when—it being forbidden to sell poison for the body—the dissemination of such poison for the soul should be also legally made publicly impossible . I am , Sir , yours obediently , FREDERICK GEORGE LEE .