-
Articles/Ads
Article FREEMASONRY VINDICATED. ← Page 2 of 7 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Freemasonry Vindicated.
our opponents confining themselves to vague assertions ) appears to have commenced in the following manner . Bro . William Hunter , at a social meeting of the Lodge Journeymen of Edinburgh , of which he is the Master , in February last , delivered a very interesting Masonic address to the brethren , which was duly reported at the time in the pages of this Magazine . After
enumerating the various good effects of Freemasonry , the lecturer adverted to some peculiarly striking instances of benevolence which had been exhibited in connexion with members of the Lodge he was addressing . A report of his speech found its way into the Caledonian Mercury , a few days afterwards . Within a week the same paper published a letter signed " Medicus" containing some very impertinent and absurd remarks upon Bro . Hunter ' s speech . The writer assumes that the statements put forth
as to the merits of Freemasonry , were intended as a decoy to induce weakminded individuals to join the Order . He calls Masonry a relic of the dark ages and unfit to bear the light of the nineteenth century ; denies that it exercises any power to regenerate or elevate humanity , and winds up his rambling diatribe by accusing the Craft of a tendency to subvert Christianity . This production is so very weak and illogical , that we must come to the conclusion that it is the work either of a very juvenile or a very
ignorant person . It has had the effect , however , of producing two rejoinders under the signatures of u Latomus ¦ " and A Freemason , " the former of whom reminds Medicus ' " that several of the most eminent among Scottish physicians have been members of the Order ; though , if Medicus , r has any right at all to the title he has assumed , it is probably derived merely from his
being a student at one of the medical schools of the northern metropolis . The reply proceeds to ask how Medicus " can reconcile the fact that the most distinguished divines , even of the highest rank , in England and Scotland have been Masons , with the statement that the principles of the Order are antagonistic to the doctrines which those great and pious men spent their lives in inculcating . This letter is short but well written .
The other respondent A Freemason , " is perhaps more argumentative in his manner of showing the fallacy of the dicta of u Medicus . " Nothing daunted , however , by the completeness of the rebuff he had received , this very empty person returns to the attack in a still more furious and bombastic effusion . He says that Freemasons make a great fuss and parade about occasionally performing works of charity which—to use his very elegant phraseology—" Jim , Tom , or Jonathan perform every day
without making any noise about it . " A quantity of vulgarity and fustian follows on the subject of what he styles the exclusiveness of the Craftand he concludes by insinuating that a parallel exists between Masonry and French revolutionary secret societies , and Spanish and Italian inquisitorial tribunals . Like so many other cowans , he cannot away with the secrecy which Masons observe . u Why , " shouts he , " dorf t you tell us all about it if it is so wise and benevolent an institution—oh , it ' s because you are all a
parcel of humbugs and afraid of being found out . " We are surprised that the Brethren considered this very puny antagonist worthy of any further notice—for our own part we should have been inclined to meet his vagaries rather with a smile than an answer ; the shrewd and comprehensive reply ^ however , made by A Freemason , " though we fear thrown away upon his
Opponent , is worthy of the attentive perusal of every member of the Craft . It is admirably written , and a gentlemanlike and charitable spirit is pre » served throughout , which strongly contrasts with the language of his adversary . It is of considerable length and we can only notice one or two points . With regard to the exclusiveness" sheered at by u MqcUcus /? our jBrother remarks : —»
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Freemasonry Vindicated.
our opponents confining themselves to vague assertions ) appears to have commenced in the following manner . Bro . William Hunter , at a social meeting of the Lodge Journeymen of Edinburgh , of which he is the Master , in February last , delivered a very interesting Masonic address to the brethren , which was duly reported at the time in the pages of this Magazine . After
enumerating the various good effects of Freemasonry , the lecturer adverted to some peculiarly striking instances of benevolence which had been exhibited in connexion with members of the Lodge he was addressing . A report of his speech found its way into the Caledonian Mercury , a few days afterwards . Within a week the same paper published a letter signed " Medicus" containing some very impertinent and absurd remarks upon Bro . Hunter ' s speech . The writer assumes that the statements put forth
as to the merits of Freemasonry , were intended as a decoy to induce weakminded individuals to join the Order . He calls Masonry a relic of the dark ages and unfit to bear the light of the nineteenth century ; denies that it exercises any power to regenerate or elevate humanity , and winds up his rambling diatribe by accusing the Craft of a tendency to subvert Christianity . This production is so very weak and illogical , that we must come to the conclusion that it is the work either of a very juvenile or a very
ignorant person . It has had the effect , however , of producing two rejoinders under the signatures of u Latomus ¦ " and A Freemason , " the former of whom reminds Medicus ' " that several of the most eminent among Scottish physicians have been members of the Order ; though , if Medicus , r has any right at all to the title he has assumed , it is probably derived merely from his
being a student at one of the medical schools of the northern metropolis . The reply proceeds to ask how Medicus " can reconcile the fact that the most distinguished divines , even of the highest rank , in England and Scotland have been Masons , with the statement that the principles of the Order are antagonistic to the doctrines which those great and pious men spent their lives in inculcating . This letter is short but well written .
The other respondent A Freemason , " is perhaps more argumentative in his manner of showing the fallacy of the dicta of u Medicus . " Nothing daunted , however , by the completeness of the rebuff he had received , this very empty person returns to the attack in a still more furious and bombastic effusion . He says that Freemasons make a great fuss and parade about occasionally performing works of charity which—to use his very elegant phraseology—" Jim , Tom , or Jonathan perform every day
without making any noise about it . " A quantity of vulgarity and fustian follows on the subject of what he styles the exclusiveness of the Craftand he concludes by insinuating that a parallel exists between Masonry and French revolutionary secret societies , and Spanish and Italian inquisitorial tribunals . Like so many other cowans , he cannot away with the secrecy which Masons observe . u Why , " shouts he , " dorf t you tell us all about it if it is so wise and benevolent an institution—oh , it ' s because you are all a
parcel of humbugs and afraid of being found out . " We are surprised that the Brethren considered this very puny antagonist worthy of any further notice—for our own part we should have been inclined to meet his vagaries rather with a smile than an answer ; the shrewd and comprehensive reply ^ however , made by A Freemason , " though we fear thrown away upon his
Opponent , is worthy of the attentive perusal of every member of the Craft . It is admirably written , and a gentlemanlike and charitable spirit is pre » served throughout , which strongly contrasts with the language of his adversary . It is of considerable length and we can only notice one or two points . With regard to the exclusiveness" sheered at by u MqcUcus /? our jBrother remarks : —»