Mr. Kerr's Attack Upon Freemasonry.

Mr . Kerr has therefore not been able to find in " Mackey , " at any rate , any agreement or difference with the quotations given us from Mr . Thomas Wilson ' s publication . It seems a great

p ity that Mr . Kerr cannot see how important an element is truth in all such discussions But , then , when we note that he complacently gives , as the illustration of his argument ,

some excerpta from Mr . Wilson's publication , and which he has greedily swallowed , like a " veritable gobemouche , " as truly representing our Masonic ritual , from the work , too , of a person ,

on his own admission , be he real or imaginary , self perjured , we can only feel how very lax are Mr . Kerr ' s notions both of honour and morality . He dogmatically goes on to say " let

no Christian dare to affirm that he can never rid himself of such an oath rashly taken" ( that is the " obligation " given by Mr . Wilson ) " and binding himself to things so unlawful . " "Oaths

are never binding , he continues most authoritatively , " when the fulfilment is unlawful . " Dreadful sophistry ! It would be amusing , we re it not sad , to see a Jesuit professor and a

Reformed Presbyterian , standing on the same low level , though curiously enough , it is not the first time in history , that " extremes" thus " meet , " or that the Roman Church and the Presbyterian

Kirk , have so to say , made common cause in promulgating the most baneful of all maxims , " the end justifies the means , " in asserting the lawfulness of persecution , and in assailing us

poor Freemasons . Here , as we see , Mr . Kerr with that peculiar absence of logic which distinguishes him , makes a " petitio principii , '' assumes that the " obligation" is unlawful , " per

se , " and then says practically '' you should not keep it , you may break it , " and offers the sanction of religion | for such a proceeding . We need hardl y now tell our readers , that when Mr . Kerr

asserts that secret societies are opposed to scripture and to reason , the scripture he quotes from has nothing to do with the question , and the reason is certainly not " pure reason , " but

emphatically his own . We wish we could think that Mr . Kerr had seriously studied the difficult question he gives so ready an opinion upon , but our honest belief is , that the pamphlet is

purely " sensational" in itself , and reflects little credit either on his scrupulousness as regards the authorities he uses , or of his charity towards his brethren . To our minds , it is only another

striking example of credulity and intolerance combined . What is it that renders Freemasonry so distasteful both to the zealous Romanist on the one hand , and the stern Presbyterian on the

other ? Mr . Kerr seeks to give an answer to this query , from his Presbyterian point of view alone ( for the good man would be horrified , we fancy , really to find himself with a Catholic

ally ) , in five allegations . First hi says Freemasonry is irreverent in its treatment of the Bible . Secondly , he alleges that Freemasonry is a rival to the Church ( he means the Reformed

Presbyterian Body ) , making itself a " saving " institution . Thirdly , he affirms that Freemasonry forms a spurious relationship between

men , and commits positive injustice towards those who are non-Masons . Fourthly , Mr . Kerr declares that Freemasonry profanes the " rOrdinance of the Oath . " Fifthly , Mr , Kerr

Mr. Kerr's Attack Upon Freemasonry.

solemnly announces that Freemasonry refuses admission to women . Serious charges , Master Shallow ! but let us look into them : —In the first place we utterly deny that there is the

slig htest foundation for so shameful and unjust an accusation against our Order , that it treats God ' s Word irreverently ; on the contrary , we affirm most conscientiously , after the experience

of many years , that nowhere does the Inspired Vol ume receive more reverential treatment than it doss in a Freemasons' Lodge and from Freemasons . Would that all professedly Christian

teachers and expounders treated it as reverently . Mr . Kerr quotes in proof of his assertion , the Masonic use of two texts of Scripture , innocently adapted as they are , and as adaptations ,

necescessarily purely " ad rem . ' But Mr . Kerr forgets ttat , while he charges us Freemasons with a very harmless adaptation of Holy Scripture , he has himself parodied , and

offensively parodied , for his own purpose two other texts of Scripture , which have not and could not have the slightest bearing on Freemasonry and secret societies . II . In the next place , as

regards " rivalry with the Reformed Presbyterians , " we can only repl y at once , Freemasonry would emphatically disclaim any such" soft

impeachment , the more so , as Mr . Kerr s idea is a pure chimera , and founded on titter ignorance of our true tenets . For we do not hold that

Freemasonry is a " saving institution , as Mr . Kerr calls it , or even " a religion , " though we look upon Freemasonry as a handmaid to religion , and whatever some

enthusiastic brethren have said or written , the Order never has held , nor does it hold such views to-day . As regards the alleged Masonic baptism which Mr . Kerr quotes as an

illustration , we give it up at once ; it is a hurtful excrescence upon Freemasonry ; though in use . we believe , and regret to believe , both in some continental countries and in America , it has

never , so far as we arc aware , received the slightest countenance under our three Grand Lodges . III . In Mr . Kerr ' s third allegation , ho argues that Freemasonry forms a spurious

relationship among men , and commits positive injustice to non-Masons . He quotes a supposed rule of a Royal Arch degree somewhere , of " promoting a companion Royal Arch Mason ' s

political preferment in preference to another of equal qualifications . " This is so palpably absurd on the face of it , that , we wonder Mr . Kerr , a canny Scotchman as no doubt he is ,

has allowed himself to be gammoned by such trash . There is no such rule in Royal Arch : Masonry , and Freemasonry has no more to do 1 with political questions than it has with religious

controversies . We fancy we have seen the same rubbish before , and that it is one of the lbs published against our American brethren at the time of the Morgan persecution . It is , indeed , a

' great pity that Mr . Kerr should be so very credulous , and should have evidently taken such little pains to obtain correct information before he wrote so diffusely and so verbosely on a

subject of which he clearly understands nothing at ' all . IV . In his fourth objection Mr . Kerr ' states that Freemasonry profanes " the ordnance

' of the oath . " We challenge Mr . Kerr ' s premise . ' We are , it is true , a secret society , and we have an " obligation ; " but Freemasonry is recognised

Mr. Kerr's Attack Upon Freemasonry.

by the State as a secret society , yet as perfectly liErmless , and what the laws specially permit , cannot be illegal . We certainly are not bound to take Mr . Kerr ' s view , or the . reformed

Presbyterian Synod ' s view , of what constitutes an unlawful oath . Such views may have force for a reformed Presbyterian , but they have none for us , or indeed for any one else . V . And , lastly ,

Mr . Kerr objects that we do not receive women . Well , we do not , and that is the truth , and for once Mr . Kerr is coirect , and charming as women are , as Burns sang so well of old , and as our Masonic poetry declares ,

" No mortal can more The Ladies adore , Than a Free and an Accepted Mason , '' Yet we are inclined to think that , despite Mr .

Kerr ' s thunder , we shall not receive them just yet . Do not our readers begin to breathe a little , after such a long-winded article , and after the dreadful assault is over ? We are greatly

amused , we confess , with Mr . Kerr s commendation of a past or incipient Presbyterian persecution of Freemasons in America , just as if the , " gude mon" would like to see the same at " Auld

Reekie , " or in the city of the ever famous " Baillie Nicol Jarvie . " But we fancy our friends over the border are a little too long-headed to mind either Roman Catholic interdicts or

Presbyterian condemnations . We believe , on the contrary , that all such "' cursings , " synodical or ecclesiastical , like Balaam ' s of old , turn to blessings . Freemasonry cares nothing for Papal

rescripts , or Presbyterian anathemas , but marches on her way calm and composed , trusting and tolerant , knowing the justice of her cause , the

purity of her intentions , and believing that she symbolizes , in her imperfect embodiment even now , a future and happier hour of universal brotherhood , and peaceful unity for mankind .

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

[ Wc do not hold ourselves responsible for , or even as approving of the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but we wish , in a spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—tree discussion , —Ev , j

MASONIC RECEPTION AT PLYMOUTH AND THE MILITARY BRETHREN .

To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — The exclusion of our military brethren from the grand Masonic procession which took place in Plymouth during the recent visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has created

so much feeling among the Masonic' brethren of the three towns , that I should esteem it a fivour if you will grant me space for a few words upon the subject . I have read with very great pleasure the article which appears in last week ' s Freemason . It is one with which the majority of

Masons in this neighbourhood deeply sympathise , because they still feel , in spite of what has been said to the contrary , that our military brethren have been most unfairly treated , and that their exclusion from the procession was a deliberate act , and not the result either of a

mistake or misunderstanding . This is not a mere hap-hazard statement , nor the outcome of the annoyance which the brethren in question might naturally feel under the circumstances , but it is based upon valid and substantial grounds , of which probably , a great deal more will yet be

heard . Your coirespondent " Soldier Brother" is not far wrong when he throws the responsibility of what you are charitably pleased to call an error , upon the Masonic authorities , that is to say , upon the Masonic Committee , on whom devolved the carrying out of the arrangements connected with the procession ,