Freemasonry Considered In Its Relation To Society.

4 . The vanity of its titles is another charge against the order . Masons do not object to Mr . Kerr calling himself Rev ., nor to his claim to belong to the " Joint Reformed Presbyteries of Edinburgh and Glasgow , " nor to his assuming any other title he pleases , and he should in this

tolerant age give the same latitude even to Masons . For all the effect his denunciations will have , he might as well have objected to the Emperor of China ' s claim to kindredship with the sun and moon . Many of the titles to which he objects are

not to be found in " Solomon iu all his Glory , " and the presumption is , that he has found them in his other equally veracious authority , "Light on Masonry . " 5 . The practice of laying foundation stones is objected to on the ground that

its rites amount to a profanation of the worship of God . Most Masons are familiar with the ritual used on such an occasion . The ceremony is solemn and impressive , and how any one can discover profanity in it is only explicable by supposing that the person labouring under the delusion has yet another , viz ;—his doxy is orthodoxy , and every other person's doxyis heterodoxy .

This objection is similar to some others adduced by him . He is like a man looking through green spectacles : everything appears green to him , while the greenness is only in the glasses . 6 . From information derived from "Solomon . in all his Glory" and "Liht

, g on Masonry , " he comes to the conclusion that Freemasonry treats irreverently the Word of God . This charge is altogether unfounded . Freemasonry teaches the greatest reverence for that Sacred Volume , admonishing every craftsman " to consider

it as the unerring standard of truth and justice , and to regulate their actions b y the divine precepts it contains . " Freemasons may not all square their actions with that Holy Book , but that is not the fault of their teaching—it is a fault of

some obliquity of judgment or erroneous teaching on the part of some institution outside the pale of Masonry . 7 . Freemasonry is charged with profaning the ordinance of the oath . Having attempted to demonstrate thisthe same

, religious teacher goes on to teach doctrines which he would condemn in Liguori , He teaches that all Masonic oaths are not binding . He describes Masonic oaths as

rashly taken , and he raises two questions : " Are the Officers of Masonic Lodges lawfully qualified and entitled to administer oaths 1 " tc Are the circumstances of the case so momentous as to warrant an oath 1 " To the first question the answer simply is : The officers of a Masonic Loclge are lawfully

qualified and entitled to administer oaths . To the second question the answer is , Masons themselves are the proper judges as to whether an oath is warranted . It is needless to follow the pamphlet through all its tortuous windings . Not

content with condemning Freemasonry , he uses a few euphonious epithets to give weight to his denunciations , e . g ., he speaks of it as blasphemous , dishonouring to God , heinous , unchristian , irreligious , horrid and sanguinary . Some of its rites he describes

as daring blasphemies , daring profanation of the Worship of God . Its oaths are characterised as brutal imprecations . Having used these choice epithets regarding Freemasonry , it is not to be wondered at that he should teach that perjury is lawful . This is a proposition which affects the wellbeing of society , and it is painful to read

in the pamphlet under notice that au oath taken by a Mason is not binding . What is an oath 1 It is a solemn act of religious worship , wherein a direct appeal is made to God as a witness , and must be taken without any dissimulation or mental evasion . A . writer who is regarded as an

authority by Mr . Kerr ' s body asks this question : " Is an oath which is lawful as to the matter , though simple as to the manner , and even obtained by deceit and rashly made binding and obligatory upon the person who has sworn it . " * To this he

replies : " Yes , as is evident from the instance of the Gibeonites who deceived Israel into a league with them by oath , and yet their oath was binding . " That Masonic oaths are lawful does not require demonstrationfor they are sanctioned by

, the legislature , and it has never been shown that they contain anything repugnant to religion . Besides , were those oaths so horrible , so brutal , so daringly blasphemous as this gentleman represents thorn to be , no person is bound to take on him a second

obligation . If any one finds on mature reflection that any deception has been practised , that he has taken it rashly , or