Correspondence.

CORRESPONDENCE .

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Cor . respondents . 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 .

— : oi—GRAND ORIENT AND ENGLISH FREEMASONRY .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON ' CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —The controversy upon this subject , intensely interesting as it undoubtedly is , appears to mo somewhat out of elite to serve any useful or practical purpose . The proper time would have been during the deliberations of tho Committee , and before tho last meeting of Grand Lodge . Not that I for a moment

suppose any amount of correspondence , either fro or con , would have exercised the slightest influence as regards tho result . The most eloquent advocacy in favour of tho delinquent would have been of no effect , or had any chance of success in the slightest degree to alter the foregone conclusion . It was from the beginning the intention to proclaim that members of the Grand Orient have forfeited all claim

to participate in English Masonic privileges . By the unanimous voice of the representatives of numerous English Lodges that intention has been carried into effect . Right or wrong , prudent or injudicious , in whichever light it is taken , the decree has gono forth , and loyalty demnnds due , unhesitating , and unqualified submission The past cannot be recalled , and if this discussion is to havo any

value it should bo directed towards the elucidation of such points as might tend towards re-nnion , and tho re-ostablisliment of what cannot now bo justly termed a Universal Brotherhood . The subject has already been dealt with in a variety of ways , and tho social , moral and historical bearings thereof , have received ample consideration . But there is a view of which , hitherto , no notice has been taken ,

meriting , as it appears to me , some amount of attention . I allude to what I must claim permission to call its psychological aspect . Tho Grand Orient is accused of a crime which , to my humble apprehension , it would bo difficult to substantiate . It is charged with the offenco of removing the barrier erected to exclude those who are opposed to tho popular conception of a deity , and are supposed

to chorish atheistic opinion . Now , I start with tho axiom that atheism is a moral impossibility , and consequently that what is intended to be conveyed by the term atheist does not in reality exist . The mere assertion of disbelief docs in no way militate against this proposition , for it may arise from an abnormal peculiarity of mental condition . The religions faculty eminently belongs

to men , and is the most powerful and abiding . It is not to bo suppressed , howover much it might for a time be disregarded , its influence will ever predominate , and there is no process capable of bringing about its annihilation . The negationist no doubt fancies himself tho votary of trnth , while in reality he prostrates his intellect before vain imaginings and offevs incense upon the altar of

falsehood and deceit . But that condition of mind is fleeting and unsubstantial . The natural instinct of men is prone to self examination during the progress of which it is speedily made clear , that what seemed conscientious convictiou , is but a phantom offspring of a vain conceit . and that in the innermost recesses of our being , there lurks the conscientiousness of weakness and dependence , and a yearning towards

a higher power on whom to rely for strength , support and safety . To simply say men believe in God is not a correct expression . It is absolute and perfect knowledge , more or less clear to every under , standing . If , therefore , all men know God , the term atheist is meaningless in the sense in which it is generally understood . The question therefore narrows itself to this . Ought wo , having duo

regard to that " chanty which thinketh no evil , " to refnse friendship and fraternal intercourse to one who , while refnsing verbal professions , acts in conformity with laws of God , or would it not bo wiser to judge principle by conduct . One , at the mention of whoso name millions bare the head and bend the knee , has taught , ages ago , " Ye shall know them , by their fruits , " aud has assured his disciples that

" Not every one that sayeth unto me , Lord , Lord , shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven , but he that doeth the will of the Father which is in Ht-aven . " High authority this for accepting conduct as tho true test . But in our days hypocrisy enjoys immense advantage over conscientiousness . Undoubted integrity , unremitting benevolence , and blameless life , avail nought against ostentatious declarations of

faith , and the ceaseless prattle of canting theological verbiage , the standard by which , now-a-days , man ' s character is gauged . If a man doeth tho will of tho Father , though ho might assert unbelief , and object to pronounce tho most sacred of all formulas , I hold him to be truly religious in tho very best sense of tho word . From this point of view the offence , if so it is to be called , of the Grand Orient will , I think , appear in a somewhat softer light . For if it can be

shown that the irreproachable only are accepted , whoso virtues indicate harmony with the divino law ; then the crimo about which such an outcry has been raised , and for which tho barbarous penalty of excommunication ha 3 been hurled with more or less precipitancy upon that unfortunate body is , after all , reduced to the elimination of

a formulated set of words , the spirit of which still guides its labours as of yoro . Yours fraternally , E . GOTTHEIL .

To the Editor of the FREEMASON s CHRONICLE . DEAR SIR AND BROTIIER , —In my letter of last week , my remarks were directed chiefly to a consideration of the change introduced into French Masonry by tho recent alteration in the Constitutions

Correspondence.

of the Grand Orient . I endeavoured to show that this change was a very real as well as a very important one . I strovo to tho best of my ability to meet the assertion of Bro . Thevenot , apparently endorsed by Bro . " M . B ., " to the effect that nothing whatever is ohanged in the practices of French Masonry , and to this end I used arguments based on statements contained in a well known history of

French Masonry , and on words and illustrations derived from , or explanatory of , the French ritual . I also said a few words in justiflcation of Lord Carnarvon ' s assumption that Grand Lodge would unanimously accept tho Report of tho Grand Committco , of which he was tho leading member . I will now , with your kind permission , touoh on sundry points raised by "A Free-Mason and P . M . " in his letter of the 12 th inst .

Premising , of course , that I willingly accord him that "credit for sincerity and good faith " which I claim for myself , I must in the first place point out that his lettor would havo had greater weight with me had he employed more argument and less assertion , and if , in the one or two cases in which ho has descended into the arena of argn ment , ho had started on just promises . For instance , he justifies the

conduct of the Grand Orient in its alteration of the first article of its Constitutions on the ground that " every one believes in God in some form or other . " Bro . Thevenot had previously affirmed that tho Grand Orient did not believe there were atheists in tho absolute sense of tho word—whatever that may bo ; while Bro . Norton allows that there are atheists , but considers tho number of such persons 13 very

small . I must leave Bro . Thevenot to interpret his own statements . Bro . Norton , I think , is very probably right in his belief , and sup . posing " A Free-Mason and P . M . ' s" assumption were correct , thero wonld probably bo no great harm in omitting tho words which indicate a belief in tho existence of God . But whilo Bro . Norton expresses an opinion on this matter , " A Free-Mason and P . M . "

dogmatically asserts that thero is no snch person as an atheist , and that , too , in contradiction of Bro . Thovonot ' s statement " that G . O . formerly counted among its illustrious members the eminent astronomer Lalande , and the great philosopher Helvetius , and others , who openly 2 ^ 'ofessed atheistic principles . " ( N . B . —The italics are mine . ) I repeat , I do not pretend to explain the statements of

Bro . Thevenot , who apparently draws a distinction between " atheists in the absolute sense of the word , " and persons " who openly profess atheistic principles . " But hero , at all events , we havo three brethren who jnstify the recent conduct of tho Grand Orient widoly differing nmongst themselves at tho very threshold of tho case . Bro . Norton allows that there are atheists : Bro . Thevenot denies thero are

" atheists in the absolute sense of tho word , thongh he admits there have been persons " who openly professed atheistio principles ; " and "A Free-Mason and P . M . " affirms that " every one believes in God in some form or other . " But if Bro . Norton is right , theu it seems to me the whole of " A Free-Mason and P . M . ' s " case falls to the ground , for ho starts on tho assumption that all men are theists . If ,

howover , the latter is right , then Bro . Thevenot s statement , that there havo beeu members of tho Grand Orient " who openly professed atheistic principles , " must bo erroneous . Ono thing is very certain , these threo brethren , differing a 3 thoy do so radically , cannot all be in tho right . In the next place , I think Bro . Thevonot is a more trustworthy

exponent of the principles vrhich actuated tho Grand Orient in its recent change than my English brother . The latter says all men believe in God , " but a man who believes in Buddha would doubtless hesitate in an English or French Lodge to declare such belief , " and " upon this principle the Grand Orient has resolved to ' eliminato the name of the G . A . O . T . U . from its Ritual . '" On the other hand

Bro . Thevenot , writing under a due sense of official responsibility , tells ns that the Grand Orient has resolved not to reqnire from a candidate any declaration " whether he believes or not in God , " since it wonld have been " necessary to make some sort of definition in reference to tho matter ( a thing which has always led to some very regrettable discussions ) . " "AFree-Mason and P . M . " affirms that all

men believe m God , while Bro . Thevenot when he says tho G . Orient does not require a candidato to declare " whether bo believes or not in God , " virtually allows that there are persons who do not so beliove . The former says that Grand Orient has adopted tho recent change on the principle that a religionist of this or that persnasion might hesitate to express his belief in God in a French or

English Lodge ; the latter assigns as tho reason that if such a declaration were required it would be necessary " to make some sort of definition in reference to tho matter . " It is impossible to reconcile snch statements as these , except it be on the ground that " A Free-Mason and P . M . ' s" principle and Bro . Thevenot ' s definition must necessarily be of a sectarian character . In such case , however , our

Grand Lodgo , which is strongly opposed to sectarianism , would havo had no ground of action against tho G . Orient . Tho truth is , there has been a real difficnlty in defining God , because there are many men anxious to become , or who have already becomo members of the Grand Orient , who deny His existence . So this belief or unbelief is left an open question , as is the case with the question of the admission

of women to tho franchise among our Liberal and Conservative politicians . Whether "the enemies of Freemasonry will hail with deli ght " what " A Free-Mason and P . M . " is pleased to designate as an " act of dictatorial harshness , as well as weakness , emanating from a body whose charity and freedom ought to be paramount , " is a question

which has yet to be decided . The principal enemy of Freemasonry has always been tho Roman Catholic Church , aud tho reason of its hostility tho fancied irreligious tendencies of Freemasonry . I incline to think our friends , the Romish bigots of the Dupanloup school , will be delighted to find their asseverations ns to the godless character of

French Masonry aro proved , while the conduct of our Grand Lodgo in affirming there is no Freemasonry which does not include a sense of religion , will command their respect , if not their unqualified approval . This , however , is only the expression of an opinion , and , as I have said already , has yet to be decided . As regards the objection of our Grand Lodge to " absolute liberty of conscience , " it is