unkind or offensive by either side. And had I allowed myself to be influenced by my own personal feelings; induced by my many warm, personal friendships and acquaintances among the Templars of the Great Priory, with scarcely an acquaintance among the New Brunswick Knights, I might have written differently.

Your review is quoted as saying: "He (Carson) tells the Canadian Templars that it would have been in better taste if a courteous invitation had been extended to the two Encampments to join in the organization of the Great Priory, either forgetting or not knowing that more than once a courteous ivitation has been extended to them to assist in building up a National Body of Templars in British North America."

If you had read my report you would have noted on page 18, I said "Neither of them (the N. B. Encampments) assisted at the organization, and we believe that it is not claimed that they were invited to participate in any way." And this, to my mind, was a most important fact, to which I refer further along in my report. You say they have" been more "than once" invited, &c. That may be; but when were they invited? Were they invited to participate in the organization? If they were, it is not shown in any publication that I have seen. An invitation AFTER a feast is quite a different affair from one BEfore.

You quote me as using the word "tyrannical." I don't think you can find that word in my article on Canada.

Then you bring in the "worse than malignant treatment that was accorded Sir Knight H. D. Moore, and those who agree with him in connection with the MASONIC REVIEW." Moore was tried and convicted for grossly libeling one of the most prominent and one of the purest Templars in Ohio. I was not directly interested in it, but I have no hesitation in saying that he was rightly served. The MASONIC (?) REVIEW for the past three years has teemed with coarse vulgarity and abuse of the best Masons in the State of Ohio. Our consolation now is to learn that is about played out. respectfully and fraternally yours,

Cincinnati, Feb. 28, 1887.

I am very E. T. CARSON.

We have pleasure in publishing Bro. E. T. Carson's letter in reply to our editorial reviewing the Templar Report for 1886. We do not desire to do him injustice, and consider that we were well warranted in pointing out how Bro. Carson has dealt with those

from whom he has differed, when he has shown such marked hostility to the action of the Great Priory of Canada in connection with the New Brunswick Templar difficulty. We have not the slightest wish to prejudice opinion against so distinguished a Mason, but we do not hesitate to say that we do not approve of all Bro. Carson's Masonic doings.

Bro. Carson claims that the New Brunswick Templars, working under the Chapter General of Scotland, were not invited to partipate in any way" at the organization of Great Priory, so far as he can ascertain from "any publication that he has seen." Yet it is a well-known fact that the Grand Chancellor, by direction of the Great Prior, addressed the following letter (of which we have obtained a copy) to the Encampment at St. John, and to which no reply was received::

"TORONTO, 25 October, 1879.

“‡T. Nesbit Robertson, Em. Commander St. John Encampment, St. John N.B. : "DEAR SIR AND EMINENT FRATER-I take the liberty of addressing you in reference to Templar matters in Canada, and the position which your Encampment occupies as a subordinate of the Chapter-General of Scotland. It is our earnest desire to unite all Templar organizations in Canada under the banner of our Great Priory, as we feel assured it will be to the interest of all parties concerned to aid in maintaining one sovereign and independent Body for the whole Jurisdiction. Actuated by the most friendly feelings towards your Encampment, and prompted by a desire to promote unity, I respectfully request you to invite the consideration of your members to this subject. Yours fraternally,

"DANIEL SPRY, Grand Chancellor,

The Encampment at St. John not having deigned to reply to this courteous invitation, we ask Bro. Carson how it can be claimed that they were never invited to participate until "after" the feast had been held. If he will turn to the Proceedings of Great Priory he will find that year after year the Provincial Prior of New Brunswick invited the Scottish Templars to join in establishing an Inde pendent Body for Canada.

Bro. Carson says he don't think that we can find the word "tyrannical" in his article on Canada. Will Bro. Carson kindly read the last line on page 21 of his report, where he asks the question: "What can be more TYRANNICAL," &c.

Regarding the case of Bro. H. D. Moore, who Bro. Carson says was "rightly served," we can only say that we rejoice that we publish a Masonic journal in Canada, and are not liable to be tried and punished, or persecuted, as Rev. Bro. Moore has been. Should any of the "high jinks" of any of the Rites deal with us in a similar manner, they would be lashed out of Canadian Masonry, and would be despised by every Mason who prized manhood and hated outrage and wrong doing.

At some future time we shall publish the history of this case of Bro. Moore, and allow our readers to judge of its merits. It is not creditable to Ohio Masons.

Bro. Carson also claims that in his report he tried to be fair in his dealing with Canada. If his report is a specimen of Bro. Carson's fairness and friendship for Canadian Masons, we regret that we cannot congratulate him upon the success of his mental labors. We trust, however, that our Canadian Templars have very few such friends in their present struggle.

* **

"IF we desire to guard well the entrance to our Lodges, we cannot be too circumspect in carefully observing that the requirements for gaining access thereto are fully complied with."

**

THE RESULT.

In our last issue we gave the partial outlines of the insult offered to the Knights Templar of Kentucky, in the person of their Right Eminent Grand Commander, under Section 13, of Article I, of the Statutes and Regulations of the Grand Commandery of Ohio, as construed by the resolution of 1883.

The offence is, that Rt. Em. Grand Commander JOHN S. LYLE, of Kentucky, is a member of a Scottish Rite Body, but not of the N. J. or S. J. The Rt. Em. Commander has appealed to Grand Master ROOME. This, together with the wholesale slaughter of worthy Sir Knights in the Ohio Jurisdiction, must bring this matter directly before the Grand Master and develope an issue. It is high time that this tyranny of the "lords of Edom" over the freeborn should be stopped, and a halt called in the effort of the magnates of the Scottish Rite to destroy (what they call the unnecessary) Order of the Temple.

*

**

*

IDOLATRY IN MASONRY.

Bro. MCCALLA, of the Keystone, as the colored Brethren of the South would say, is "dead sot" against it, and we do not know but that he is about right. We should prefer to endorse his view rather than the opposite. There is entirely too much of the "mountebank" being introduced under the guise of Masonry. This is undoubtedly attributable to the introduction, during the past twenty. five years, of the so-called A. A. Scottish Rite. The Rite would be nothing were it not for the gorgeous decorations, paraphernalia, costumes, progressive euchre, banquets, beer and blow that usually accompanies all their gatherings.

By reference to an item in our Craft Tidings from the Detroit Freemason, it will be seen that they travel about with their trappings, as is usual with mountebank companies, and exhibit more or less in public, or at least just enough so, to give the public an idea of what "wonderful great fellows we are." We have not space for the entire programme, but if Bro. McCalla will hunt up the Detroit Freemason of March 26, he can see it in full, illustrated like circus bills, with the electros of the chief performers. And yet they call it Masonry par excellence. It is not surprising that Bro. McCalla is disgusted. We do not object to anyone spending their money to see "the show," if they take pleasure in doing so, but then let it be under some other name than Masonry. Any other name will do as well, and be more appropriate. The Keystone says:

Idolatry is generally and popularly supposed to be abolished in civilized countries, but oftentimes this supposition is a gross mistake. Idol worship is not abolished, but the idols are changed. Where civilization reigns, it is true these idols are not grimacing monsters of wood and stone, but they are as refined as gold, and as intellectual as ideas. The two leading idols of our day are Wealth and Progress the one a material, the other an intellectual ideal. Mammon counts its votaries and worshipers by tens of thousands, while the vagaries of those who, under the cloak of Progress, seek to turn the world upside down, are a spectacle for men and angels. The anarchist and socialist are examples of the latter, and those who neither fear God nor regard man, but only seek to hoard wealth for their own selfish ends, are examples of the former. Freemasonry is opposed, on principle, to each of these classes

of idolators, and to all idolatry. It regards no man for his wealth, and it is the friend of good government, as well as of good morals, of peace and harmony in the State, as in the Fraternity; and it has a continual conflict to wage-a conflict bloodless, but persistent-with the so called advocates of Progress within the lines of the Fraternity. There is or should be no progress in Masonry It is as old as the hills, all hoary with age, having the Constitutions, old landmarks, old usages, old customs. Its verbiage is often old, outof-date, peculiar to itself. This verbiage is to be cherished as a valuable inheritance, and should not be changed at the instance of any idolater of Progress. If we reverence anything let it not be the present-and thereby ourselves, but the past, and thereby the memory of our forefathers in the Craft, who gave us Freemasonry as a glorious inheritance to treasure for our instruction and pleasure, and to deliver unimpaired in its rounded completeness to our successors, as a model of Wisdom, Strength and Beauty in action, diffusing throughout the Fraternity to its remotest bounds the Divine principles and blessings of Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth.

Brother Van Benschoten, of Connecticut, the "land of steady habits" as well as of " wooden nutmegs," in a recent address well said:

"The tendencies of our times are to seek after and glorify the new and ignore and minify the past. The present age is a veritable iconoclast, an image breaker. Change is its shibboleth; in politics, rotation in office; in religion, the new theology; in education, bread and butter studies; in society, the newest bonnet and the latest bang. In this tendency to divorce ourselves from the past, it is a fortunate thing that a few great institutions, which live on while men die, stand out as great conservators of the continuity of human civilization. This conflict between the old and the new is itself old. The Athenian, who wanted to ostracize Aristides, is a typical voter; he was tired of hearing Aristides called the Just." Freemasonry is one of these "great institutions" which "stand out as great conservators of the continuity of civilization."

It has been well said of Christianity that while in the early centuries it conquered Paganism, itself in some measure became paganized, yielding to the very influences and evils it combatted. Freemasonry analagously has largely overcome the prejudices which early existed against it, but since it has grown popular it is in danger Vol. 67.-No. 3.-4.