Ar00200

view , namely , to establish a separate and independent Grand Lodge , which shall exercise supreme authority over the Craft in Victoria . Nor , in the event of the proposal being adopted unanimously or with some approach to unanimity by the various Constitutions in the Colony , have we any doubt as to its being readily and gracefully acquiesced in by the Grand Lodges of

the Old Country , with the usual proviso that any lodges which may elect to remain in their old allegiance in preference to joining the new organisation shall be at liberty to do so . It would also perhaps be as well that our home authorities , in view of the recent wanton invasion of their jurisdiction in this very colony of Victoria by the Grand Chapter of Canada , should

stipulate for a retention of their supremacy over all these colonies and dependencies of the British crown which are not governed by Grand Lodges of their own . However , it will be time to take these and similar matters into consideration when a United Grand Lodge of Victoria has been

established and applies for recognition . It is enough for the present that steps are being taken to this end with every probability of success , and for a time , therefore , we content ourselves with expressing the hope that , whatever happens , the interests of the Craft generally will remain unimpaired .

* * * The Question A WRITER in the New Zealand Masonic Journal for October , 11 * diet * ' s rnerry at our expense over an article we wrote in the month again . •of March , in which we objected to a statement by its

predecessor , the New Zealand Freemason , to the effect that "the Grand Lodges of England , Ireland , and Scotland , " and all other Grand Lodges , have a full right to establish lodges at will , and pointed out that " a United States Grand Lodge could not warrant a lodge in New Zealand or any other English Colony , nor could the Grand Lodge of Canada grant warrants

for lodges outside the limits of its own jurisdiction . He considers that these remarks are an indication that we look upon Freemasonry as a political society , and gravely asks where we get our law from . We believe there is no law on the subject , but the late Bro . Dr . MACKEY , who entered more fully into the difficult question of jurisdiction than any other known writer on

Masonic jurisprudence , laid it down , we believe , that the jurisdiction of a Grand Lodge was , usually , and by courtesy , considered as co-extensive with the political jurisdiction of the state or country in which it was located . Thus , the various Grand Lodges in the United States limit their claims to the exercise of jurisdiction to the States or Territories in which they are

severally situated , the Masonic jurisdiction of the Grand Lodgeof New York being co-terminous with the political jurisdiction of the State of New York , that of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania , with that of the State of Pensylvania , and so forth . Where there are colonies and dependencies politicall y connected with the country which established them , there also the Masonic

jurisdiction of a Grand Lodge or Orient is co-terminous with the political jurisdiction of the Mother Country . Thus , the Grand Lodge of the Netherlands and the Grand Orient of France claim and exercise jurisdiction , the former over all Masonic lodges in Dutch Colonies and dependencies , and the latter over those in French Colonies and dependencies . The matter

is more complex in the case of the British Empire , as the Grand Lodges of England , Ireland , and Scotland , by the unwritten law of usage , claim and exercise concurrent Masonic jurisdiction over all those British Colonies and dependencies which do not possess Grand Lodges of their own . In short , though Masonry is not a political body , the authority exercised by a Grand

Lodge does not extend beyond the territorial limits of the state or country in which it is established . Were it otherwise , there would belittle else than discord among the Grand Lodges and Grand Orients of the world , and Freemasonry , instead of being a means of promoting goodwill among men of different races , would be the cause of infinite strife and ill-feeling . In the

early days of modern Masonry , when the only G . lodges in existence were those of England , Ireland , and Scotland , these difficulties about jurisdiction seldom or never occurred ; but it soon became evident that , with or without a law upon the subject . it was desirable that . the Masons resident in each

country should have some Masonic authority of their own to preside over them instead of paying allegiance to one in a foreign State . To permit or encourage a system which would enable a Grand Lodge to plant Grand Lodges wherever it pleased would be an act of madness .

"The Religion Of Freemasonry,"*

" THE RELIGION OF FREEMASONRY , " *

We have much pleasure in reproducing Bro . Hughan ' s Introduction to Bro . Whymper ' s work , which was reviewed in our columns on the 27 th ult ., feeling sure it will prove interesting to our readers . On agreeing to write a short introduction to Bro . Whymper ' s work , I

had no idea the latter was to be of such an extensive character . As it is , however , nothing appears to be needed to ensure its careful perusal , for the volume tells its own tale in unmistakable language , and requires no sponsor . This is fortunate , as it is rather awkward for my part to be done when not quite in full sympathy with the author on the general question .

It is quite clear that my friend has every confidence in the stand he has taken and fears no opposition , so that my task is certainly the easier under such happy circumstances , and the more so , when it is noted how thoroughly Bro . Whymper has treated this confessedly difficult subject . His industry

and perseverance have been unbounded , and no researches or enquiries appear to have been spared to make the work thoroughly comprehensive and authentic . The result is an invaluable repertory of facts , which constitute an excellent and trustworth y foundation on which to build our theories and opinions , whether favourable or otherwise to the views propounded by

"The Religion Of Freemasonry,"*

the enthusiastic and distinguished author , besides furnishing us with the matured observations and convictions of a zealous Masonic student . One of the chief objects of the work is to illustrate " the circumstance that the original principles of Freemasonry were based on Christian Catholicity , " as evidenced by the premier "Constitutions" of 1723 , and

more distinctly by the 2 nd edition of 1738 ; several portions of which , submitted for that purpose , are given in parallel columns , with some later variations , to 1884 . To my mind , however , they all tend in the direction of

Cosmopolitanism and Religious Universality , save the copy of 1722 ( which is scarcely suitable for comparison with the Modern Speculative Regulations ) , that of 1723 particularly , being indicative of the altered conditions of the Society of that period .

That English Freemasonry was Christian prior to the organisation of the premier Grand Lodge cannot be doubted by those who are familiar with the " Old Charges " used by the Craft during the preceding centuries

In this respect , as in several others , I entirely concur with Bro . Wh ymper and am , moreover , bound to admit that no record exists of any express agreement to change the Fraternity from an exclusively Christian to a Religious or Theistic organisation .

But if the original Christian basis of the Society should be continued , because never expressly altered by the " Revivalists , " it appears to me that logically such a condition could not be observed by favouring the platform of Catholicity , inasmuch as Freemasonry until the era of Grand Lod ge was distinctly Trinitarian , and hence Unitarians were but little more suitable

as members under the old system than Jews or men of other faiths . Precisely when other candidates than Jews were admitted into the Brotherhood with professed Christians , it is not easy to determine , but as respects our Israelitish members , we shall not be far wrong if we date their first welcome into the Fraternity as far back as 150 years , or even more .

The R . W . Bro . Mclntyre , Q . C , P . G . W . ( as Grand Registrar ) , declared in Grand Lodge ( 5 th Dec , 1877 ) that * ' up to 1813 , the two Grand Lodges of England were Christian Grand Lodges . In 1813 we became a

Universal Grand Lodge , and Jews were admitted amongst us . ' ' I am not aware of any facts to corroborate such an assertion , the simple truth being that they are all in the opposite direction , the less exclusive Constitution having been in force long before the " Union . "

The lamented Lord Tenterden , K . C . B . ( Prov . G . W . Essex ) , declared at the same-Communication that " when Freemasonry was introduced into Germany last century , it was constituted on the Christian system of St . John The Three Globes Lodge was constituted in 1740 as a Christian Lodge . " According to Bro . Gould , P . G . D . ( and there is no

better guide ) , this lodge was started by the sole authority of Frederick the Great , so that we are not much concerned with vvhat was done under those circumstances ; but in reference to the introduction of Freemasonry

into that country , we may be assured that , so far as England was concerned , there was no departure from the ordinary usage of that period , and that no warrants of constitution were granted of a different character to those authorised for other countries by the premier Grand Lodge .

It must be conceded that even now freemasonry is " simply and purely Christian " under some Grand Lodges , but so long as such organisations are willing to admit visitors from England and other countries , where the Craft is established on broader lines , it is not for us to object to their

narrower system . The late Earl of Zetland , as Grand Master , obtained all necessary concessions from such Grand Lodges during the fifth decade of this century by securing the recognition of all regular brethren as visitors , without regard to their Religious Faith and Creed . More than this we cannot fairly require ; though it leaves much to be desired .

It was distinctly announced by authority of the M . W . G . M ., in 1865 , that there was nothing to prevent anyone " who believes in the Omnipotent , Omniscient , and Omnipresent God , and who in private life practises the sacred duties of morality , from being initiated into the secrets and

T . G . A . O . T . U . Lord Zetland but followed in the steps of his illustrious predecessors H . R . H . the Duke of Sussex , M . W . G . M ., who aided in the arrangement , for the initiation ot a Mahommedan in 1836 , and was in full sympathy with those who desired to extend rather than curtail the foundation on which Freemasonry rests .

It is clear , however , that such authoritative decisions presuppose that candidates cherish or have adopted some paiticular form of reli gious faith , and are not simply Deists , because the obligation to secrecy and fidelity is to be taken on those " Sacred Writings " which to them are binding on their consciences .

Still , with all the predilections for a comprehensive and cosmopolitan basis , nothing can obliterate the evidences of the Christian origin of our Fraternity , and hence , whilst prepared to the fullest extent possible to accept worthy neophytes without respect to their creed , colour , or clime ,

mysteries of our Order . " This decision was officially communicated , because the then Dist . G . M . of Bengal objected to Hindoos being proposed as candidates for initiation , notwithstanding one of that number had offered to make a declaration that " he was not a Pantheist or Polytheist , and did not identify the Creator with any of his creatures , but believed in

one cannot but feel that those brethren who are neither professed Christians , nor Jews , will meet with numerous references in our ceremonies founded on the Old and new New Testament Scriptures , which will not favour their own notions ot theology .

The Bible should be "the Great Light of the Craft , " and never be closed in open Iodge , whatever volumes else may be at times essential for the purposes of reception . I have never heard of any objections to such a rule , and trust that none will ever be urged , for unless other relig ionists are prepared to practise as well as expect toleration by thus maintaining the