“HISTORY” AND FREEMASONRY.

Marlborough Express, Volume VI, Issue 296, 10 June 1871, Page 6

“HISTORY” AND FREEMASONRY.

Sib, — I regret a writer calling himself “History ” should have shown himself so intolerant and abusive, in a letter published in the JS T ews in answer to mine you quoted from the Thames Advertiser. There is nothing easier than to quote authorities in support of a particular argument. “ History ” gives examples, but he should hare mentioned the creed of his authors, that I may judge of their impartiality. 1 would also remind this zealous writer that abuse is not argument, and is powerless to convince. His ignorance of the principles of Masonry is pardonable ; he retails only what he has heard, or read from authors whose religious indiosyncrasies lead them to a perversion of the truth ; his style exonerates him from the charge of hearing both sides of the question ; he only believes in the history (if history it can be called) which supports his argument, notwithstanding the assertion of his co-religionist, the Count de Maestre, “ that history for the last three hundred years is a huge conspiracy against the truth.” Now, Sir, much depends upon how history is read and interpreted. If we sit down to our study with a jaundiced mind, and gloat over those authors only which feed its unwholesome appetite—if we read only one narrative by a 1 prejudiced and partial witness, and fling aside all which has been recorded by contemporary ■writers—l cay we read to little purpose. It is our duty, and should be our pleasure, to investigate both, and eliminate the truth by careful dissection. It occurs to me my friend “ History” has failed in this important particular, and that his mind is in that unhappy and diseased state which is to me more sad than any historical ignorance. He alludes to the condition of France, Italy, and Spain, and plunges into the fight against Masonry like one foolish or insane. Does he think a people have no social or political aspirations? Does the slave never rise against the enslaver? Are the people never to draw comparison between religious toleration and its antithesis —between the state of that country where the one exists, and the other in which it does not ? Sir, I read these signs by the light of a different intelligence ; the cry of the Italian people for freedom has been raised again and again : “ Rome for Italy !” “ Rome for Italy !” And what was that other cry raised by the multitude in the hour of their triumph ; “ Save us from .” Will “History” complete the sentence ?

I refer my polite censor to the discourses of the Rev. Father Hyancinthe, an eminent divine of his (ihurch, and erstwhile Bishop of Notre Dame, in Paris; their attentive study would enlarge his somewhat restricted ideas upon the cause of these revolutions ignorantly ascribed to the “ treacherous machinations of Masonry.” He indulges in a most illogical style of reasoning, and defiantly asks, “ Was not Prim a Mason?” Granted. The title is considered by millions as a synonym for patriot ; and] though my theology does not find favor with. “ History,” I nevertheless tell him I attribute these terrible struggles of an unhappy people, not to the revolutionary ihfluences of Masonry, but Precognise in them a'

great and a permitted evil to work out the salvation of the country and the regeneration of its people. Countries are plunged into bloody revolutions by corrupt government, or ecclesiastical oppression, or both combined, and oligarchy is the pernicious fruits of such a combination, and what can stem the torrent coming from such a source ? Utter suspension of order, and a bloody retribution upon the supposed or real oppressors—the suppression of all law, and defiance of all religion—result not from, the “ horrors committed by the Order,” but from the military despotism of the Imperial ruler, and the intolerance of the ecclesiastical institutions. Ido not require to go back a hundred years or so for historical evidence—it comes down to our own times—and the impartial study of history, both sacred and profane, only points to the fact that all revolutions have sprung from the causes I have indicated ; a happy and contented people are never revolutionary. I am sorry my next remarks must be in condemnation of “History.” He loses his tender and his politeness ; becomes irreverent, and writes uncommonly like a heathen—a circumstance to be lamented in so profound a theologian. I did not find fault with his Church, or “its doctrine of excommunication and prevention of Christian burial.” The fault I found was in performing the ceremony over the deceased gentleman, and then in a manner reviling his memory. The charge of atheism, and the expulsion of the Creator from the Masonic lodge, is simply a falsehood. “ History ” is wonderfully daring, and utterly devoid of discretion. Will he tell me if the massacre of the Huguenots, the persecution of the Waldenses in Germany, and the Covenanters in Scotland, resulted from Masonic conventicles ? Were the dungeons of the “Holy{?) Inquisition” filled with hopeless and despairing victims by “the Order?” These are historical facts, are they not ? For every revolutionist, I will find twenty—aye, a hundred—Masons eminent for their social status, and their high Christian principles. “ One swallow will not make a summerand a few impious and lawless men in the ranks are not sufficient to justify “our friend’s ” sweeping condemnation of an institution of which he is profoundly ignorant. Ido not “sneer” at the Pope. The attribute of infallibility I acknowledge as an attribute of God ; and my unbiassed theology forbids its recognition in a feeble and erring old man. ’Twere easy to multiply evidence against this arrogant dogma, which was repudiated by a large and eminent section of the (Ecumenical Council.

In the eleventh paragraph “ History” becomes lugubrious; he writes: “He laughs, as many others do, at excommunications and denunciations of the Pope as useless and harmless and continues : “ But why do they notice them at all, and seem so excited when published ? We should not trouble ourselves much for all the excommunications of Masonry.” Dear “ History,” who are they, and what are we ? and why do you sin against Murray in the way you do ? If they are to be accepted in the first, singular, you still are in error ; the curses of the Pope or any other man would fall upon an undeserving head as harmlessly as water on a duck’s back. You certainly will give they the same latitude as we.

Your last paragraph is what Dick Swiveller calls “a crusher.” It assumes “that Masons admit that their teaching is atheistic —that they deny and attack all Christian principles. ” Quite wrong ;we admit nothing of the sort. Then comes the question, “ Would the Masons bury any of the profane with Masonic honors?” What on earth is your definition of profane ? Your question contains a negative to your premises admitting that Masons are opposed to profanity, which is strictly truth. You would make a one-sided historian. Your abilities would find better scope as an Inquisitor ; but, should you aspire to the dignity of a teacher, pray learn humility ; learn to regard youself as nothing better than other men—as nothing but a unit, and a sorry one too, in the great human family ; do not follow that dangerous motto that “ the end justifies the means," and your mind will be cleansed from the leprosy of a perverted zeal, and you will not again denounce, as you have done, so large a portion of your fellow men and Christians, who are Masons.—l am, &c., Thames, Auckland, May 28th, 1871. AA