SOME MEN have a hobby and seek to ride it to death. Such is the case with Bro. Moore, of the Cincinnati Review. He has been laboring for years to destroy the universality of Masonry, and to keep without its pale all who are not Christians, and indeed many who claim to be Christians but cannot subscribe to certain articles of faith, which he entertains. Such would practically be the result of his views, if they were adopted.

Pernicious as we believe the opinions of our Brother to be, still more pernicious is the spirit which he manifests in advocating them. He is egotistical and censorious, and displays but little of that saving virtue-charity-which "covers a multitude of sins." He has latterly been engaged in a controversy with Brother Hyneman, who is a kind and courteous gentleman, and whose opinions are entitled to confidence and respect. Yet Brother Moore has seen fit to display the same unenviable spirit toward the editor of the Mirror and Keystone. It is with regret that we see anything of this kind. Controversy we do not object to, but it should be carried on, espccially among Masons, in a friendly spirit. Otherwise, it is not only a positive injury to the individuals engaged, but it brings reproach upon the Institution.

On the controversy in question, Bro. Rob. Morris has published the following lines, which we think were injudi

28-VOL. IV. NO. X.

cious. Brother Hyneman takes exception to them, and with some justice.

An argument has been kept hot and hammered lustily between Bros. C. Moore and Hyneman, for some month past, in relation to the universality of Masonry. Both have lost their tempers, owing to the sparks getting into their eyes, and both have put hard language to improper uses. The twain look at the subject from precisely different points of view, Brother H. being a devoted Jew, and Bro. M. an ardent Christian. It is difficult to make converts under these circumstances, although both the debatants have tried fairly enough. The Voice of Masonry.

Of the above quotation Brother Hyneman says:

We copy the above from the pen of Rob. Morris, Grand Master of Kentucky. We do not envy the spirit in which it was written. We publish it in order that it may have a much wider publicity than he can give it, and aid him so far in gaining his object. It must not be considered, however, that we are deficient in perception, because we publish the article in our columns. To the casual reader its significance may not appear, but-it was evidently written to accomplish a certain purpose. We believe the day has gone by, when those who read Masonic publications can be prejudiced against others on account of the religion which they profess, even if instigated by a Grand Master. We write this, not in anger,-nay, we feel humiliated that a Grand Master in this age of light and knowledge, has attempted to evoke the spirit of the dark ages to influence the passions and arouse the demon of prejudice and hate. In regard to the opinions expressed by the Grand Master of Kentucky, that we lost our temper in the controversy with Bro. Moore, we not only say that this is a gratuitous assumption, but that the great mass of our readers failed to discover any such exhibition of feeling on our part. But-something must be said to introduce to the notice of his readers that we are "a devoted Jew." We will only remark that the term "Jew" personally applied to an Israelite, is never used by a gentleman. Those who are intimately acquainted with us will hardly agree with the Grand Master of Kentucky that we are a devoted Jew," and if we were, in the fullest sense of "devoted," we have yet to learn that that of itself is a cause of reproach. But we will ask the Grand Master of Kentucky, did he learn through the columns of our publication that we

66

were a Jew? or an Israelite? We defy him to point to a single sentiment written by us in our Masonic character marking our religious faith. We publish a Masonic Journal, and it is no concern of our readers what religion we profess, any more than it is ours to know that of our readers. As the publishers of a Masonic Journal we have always been careful not to obtrude our religious views before our readers, and we have never inquired into those of our cotemporaries, nor indeed any other persons. We do not know and do not care to know what creed Bro. Morris professes, nor what church he is a member of. We avow our belief in God, that is a Masonic requirement, and in accordance with Masonic teachings endeavor to live so that when we shall cast off this corruptible body, the acting, thinking, living soul shall not be encrusted with selfishness or any other vice. writings have had this end in view, viz.: to teach the practical duties of Masonry, which are those which religion requires.

All our

We will close this subject by remarking that in our editorial career we have always greeted the editorial craft in all new enterprises which have been projected, with a welcome and cordiality of feeling, to which some of our cotemporaries are a stranger, and always commended a hearty support to lighten and cheer the editor in his undertaking. We have always desired and shown the proper disposition to work in harmony with our editorial brethren. We all ought to have one object in view, to disseminate correct Masonic information, and in coöperating for such purpose we best promote the interest of the Craft, and our teachings exercise the proper influence. Our will always be found ready to grasp in kindly embrace those who labor to benefit and improve the members of our time honored Institution.

We can cheerfully endorse the words of Brother Hyneman as to his paper. He has never obtruded his peculiar religious views before his readers, and from it we had never gained the remotest idea of his sectarian views. We cheerfully bear witness, too, to his courtesy to his editorial Brethren; and we should feel a deep regret if we thought his publication would be injured by the fact that he belonged to this or that religious denomination. But we have no fears of this kind; Masons are too liberal, and too true to the teachings of our Institution, to be influenced by so unworthy motives.

Before closing this article, a sense of duty compels us to cite some other instances of a want of Masonic courtesy which cannot be too severely condemned. Brother Brennan, of the American Freemason, strives hard to write in a bitter spirit. We quote from his April No.

EDICTS. The decisions of a Grand Lodge are commonly called "Edicts;" and Freemasons in America obligate themselves to abide by such, and obey them. But it has, up to within a few months ago, remained for a Grand Master in this country to issue his "Edict," unsupported by the power that could compel obedience to it.

Brother J. R. Hartsock, present Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Iowa, has concluded to write his name as that Grand Master, high upon the roll of absurdity and egotistic sophism. In his little publication called the Western Freemason, of February last, we find the following bombasti cal effusion:

[Here follows the edict, accompanied by the following comments of Bro. B.]

He understands the words "promptly dealt with," to mean the deposition of the recusant Master and the arrest of his jewel. Absolutely! The Grand Lodge, at the instigation of a man who had he been "elected to stay at home," would have served Masonry far better than sending him to that Grand Lodge-passes a law ridiculous and absurd, inasmuch as it commands men to force others either to associate with them a thing repugnant to every sense of free or social intercourse, or to pay tithes for refusing to do so and then the Grand Master explains for that Grand Lodge what the words "promptly dealt with" mean.

We do not object to our Brother's differing with the Grand Master of Iowa; we do not object to his expressing his views. But we ask any candid reader, is it proper to apply such terms as those given above to any high Masonic functionary? Who is it that thus speaks of the Grand Master of Iowa? J. F. BRENNAN. And who, pray, is J. F. Brennan, who thus arrogates to himself the right to read lectures. to a Grand Master? He may be a respectable printer; he probably is; but we have never seen any evidence that he ever displayed any knowledge of Masonry, or received any