language that no man who deserve the title of Mason would indulge in. So insulting and vulgar was this letter that I returned it to the writer uuanswered, as such abuse was altogether uncalled for and undeserved by me, for I can truthfully assert, that the said letters were published in the MASONIC REVIEW without my knowledge or consent, and that the first knowledge I had of their appearance in the MASONIC REVIEW, was from Bro. Carson's letter of Oct. 5th, 1887, and that up to this time of writing I have not yet seen the No. of the MASONIC REVIEW Containing said letters.

It ill becomes one who utterly ignores all of his Masonic obligations, who regard Masonry as a business, and who is a party to the charge made by Bro. R. F. Gould, of England, in the issue of Sept. 3d, 1887, of the "Keystone," concerning the American edition of the "History of Freemasonry," to accuse others of ungentlemanly acts for there is no member of the Masonic Order, with one exception (and that is Albert Pike), who, in violation of his Masonic obligations, uses such un-Masonic language and abuse towards brethren who honestly differ with him in opinion, as does Enoch T. Carson. Perhaps it is due to his "police experience and associations." There is also no member of the Masonic Order who is so generally detested for his arbitrary acts towards his brethren, many of whom, in his own State, he overawes by his uncouth manners and despotic actions.

If, as Bro. Carson alleges, he is not ashamed of styling the Pike Body "fraudulent and oppressive," and as all men should glory in speaking the truth, and only ashamed of an untruth, then this assertion concerning the Southern Jurisdiction must be true; and as the legitimacy of his own branch, the Northern Jurisdiction, depends upon that of the Pike Body, which gives it life, then we have a confession from Bro. Carson that he also is advocating the claims of a spurious organization. There is no man living at the present time who is planting more discord in the Masonic Order than Enoch T. Carson, the imitator of Albert Pike: the only difference between the two being that Bro. Carson has acquired a greater following, by browbeating, in Ohio, than Pike has had the fortune to control in the entire South and Southwest.

Concerning the unfortunate expressions made by Bro. Carson, and which bears so heavily upon Albert Pike, we can produce other letters, in one of which (not addressed to the writer) Carson asserts

that all the Scottish Rite Masons of Pike's obedience, "hate him (Pike) worse than the devil.”

It is time that Bro. Carson should estimate himself by the opinions concerning him of his brethren, for we can assure him that apart from those of his own immediate following, his Ohio brethren condemn the arbitrary acts to which he has committed one Grand Body in his State to persecuting Masons for maintaining the right to judge for themselves in all matters pertaining to what might be termed foreign organizations, at least so far as the Grand Body referred to is concerned. "But those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad." When Enoch T. Carson can truthfully state that he is not acting the Mason for what the Order is worth to him pecuniarily, we shall be pleased to confess that our estimate of this man has been erroneous. FERDINAND J. S. GORGAS, M.D.

EDITOR REVIEW-On reading the first chapter of the Genesis, some days ago, the following thought came to me in relation to the passage, "In the image of God created He him, male and female created He them." is the Hebrew name given the CreaExodus vi, 3, the name which He gives

tor, or, according to the Himself.

We learn that is a dual name—JAH and HEVA, or Eva, implying the positive and the negative principles, as "Blazing Star" has been telling us. Man, therefore, in order to be in the image of the Creator, need not possess a personal image or likeness, but must, and does possess the potentiality of re-producing himself in his offspring, thus imaging himself, in the sense in which the Creator imaged Himself when he created Man.

64

The man and the woman together constitute Man, and possess that duality of nature, the potential and passive, which is implied in the Ineffable Name, and which He vouchsafed to MAN, when "he breathed into him (them) the breath of life, and MAN became a The man, minus the woman, God saw living soul." was not good to be alone." So the Lord God made woman, -a helper, meet for him. And when the man and the woman "knew" each other, the beginning of the reproduction of the image of God was made. The "image" thus vouchsafed to MAN consisted of powers, not in personal semblances.

The re-productive potentiality, being the most exalted, is that, which the Genesis refers to, since it is manifestly at the head of all, and includes all others.

In Nature, we perceive the dual principle everywhere; and it would seem as if, the Ineffable Name was evolved, or deduced, from the proposition that, since potent and passive, positive and negative, must be before anything is, wherefore, the Ineffable Name should not only be the symbol of such principle, but that the Being is that Principle, and that Principle the Duality, constituting Unity. And proceeding in this line of thought, why may not a similar process of deduetion be found to underlie all the religious systems of the world, as well as that of the Hebrews? The Creator is the God of all, although all of what we call revelations of Him have been derived from Hebrew sources.

Did the thought ever occur to you, that one of the most convincing evidences, if not the supreme evidence, to Saul's mind, on the way to Damascus, was the FACT THAT BLASPHEMY is of men ONLY? That, when he heard the words I AM: JESUS: he knew at once, that no man, speaking the Hebrew tongue,--no Jew-had uttered them lest he blasphemed? That, under and owing to this fact, the words came from a higher source? That, through this course of mentation, he was convinced and induced into a "reasonable service" of the truth ?

When Jesus said, "before Abraham was I AM," the Jews took up stones and cast at him for what they recognized, as blasphemy; because, whether the formula, I AM, is an equivalent for "ho hon," or whether an equivalent for the Ineffable Name, , the taking

of that formula, or, its close equivalent, violated the commandments, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." And, in this view, one is warranted, I think, in assuming that, that, (humanly speaking,) blasphemous utterance, conveyed to the mind and intellect of the voluntarily prostrate Saul, the supreme ray of Light which led him into the "Way" of Supreme Truth.

The idea of compulsory conviction, that you and I have been taught, in reference to Saul of Tarsus, has always been so repugnant to my apprehension of the motives of that most glorious career of Saul, the apostle of the Resurrection, that I have diligently endeavored to find a something, an initiative moment, as it were, that would offer a reasonable basis upon which his glorious career might rest. The exegeses offered by one and another of the schoolmen, were, to my mind, never divested of the tyrannism which seems to attach to the Jewish idea of God. And hence, the attempts at explaining the Vol. 68.-No. 3.-4.

"how" of the wonderful experience on the way to Damascus, have always borne the impress of the idea of a knock-down conviction, administered from without, and through physical agency, rather than by an inward illumination induced by mental processes. This latter was ever the Pauline ground of presentation. He contended that others should enjoy what he himself possessed, that those who were his followers should have a "reason for the faith that was in them."

Your very complimentary acknowledgment of my thought on the point, that blasphemy is of men only, and its application to the probable mental process which that knowledge induced in the mind of Saul of Tarsus, is very gratifying and helpful to me. As I remarked, my early instruction was of another sort, and I ventured to include yours also; for the process is slow, and the time long, which brings to us the reasonableness of some of the things which early impressions gave us but inadequate conception of. Yet it had not been so, had those who had the care of our early instruction had themselves been careful students of the words of the great apos tle. For, in writing to Philemon, he says,-" yet I found mercy, because I did it ignorantly and in unbelief." What then enlightened him? and how was he enlightened? I do not believe that one should deny himself the privilege of inquiring.

He, Saul, avoids the use of the Ineffable Name by giving the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew of it. He says the Voice spake to him in the Hebrew tongue, but he, or his historians, gives the Greek; and the Greek corresponds to that of the Septuagint, which translated into English is the I AM. Then, too, Ex. iii, 6, the name itself is avoided an equivalent only is given-Jehovah-with the verifi cation :-"That is my Name forever, and that is my memorial unto all generations." Now, when we come to reflect that Saul's defiant question : "Who art thou, sir?", in such a predicament, could be answered by such an emphatic only, and that on mortal lips, in the Hebrew, it were blasphemy. The fact that it was uttered was conclusive evidence that it proceeded from a Being who could not blaspheme. Hence, conviction and conversion was the only reasonable outcome; there could be no other. And what was hitherto "ignorance and unbelief," became straightway knowledge, enlightment and faith. Mercy is the promise to the contrite heart, and who shall say that the great apostle did not hold steadfastly to the conviction that he once had blindly arrayed himself against the Ineffable ?

M.

QUR TRACING BOARD.

[From N. Y. Dispatch, Oct. 9.]

HIGHER DEGREES.

Judging from the number of millinery stores in prosperous circumstances, and the great variety of shapes, colors, and sizes of the head-dresses of the gentler sex, there must be a very great amount of money spent for personal adornment. A new hat is a treasure to the female mind, and the bill for it a plague and a terror to the male pocketbook. It is a natural thing for ladies to desire to dress well, and a showy attire is to be expected, provided the funds are within reach. We like to see a well dressed lady. Who don't? The man who can look upon the

"The female form divine,"

dressed up as the "artists" of to-day decorate them, and not be filled with delight, is certainly devoid of much that goes to make up a high toned gentleman.

It is natural, we say, for the female portion of humanity to be attracted to a new bonnet, but to find that man, the staid old codger, who must work from morning till night for the mouthful he eats, is proud of a feather and a baldric, is certainly a matter of surprise. To see the President of a bank, or a railroad company, or some other institution, strutting like a peacock with tail-feathers well up, is certainly a sight for sober-minded people to wonder at. But such is the case in Masonry.

The showy costumes of the Commandery and other higher bodies, seem to attract the mind Masonic far more than the tessellated floor or middle chamber. And this sort of thing is growing, until every side-show of Masonry must have an addenda of a plumed knight. Thus the Knights of Pythias, with their uniformed rank, the Odd Fellows, Patriarchs Militant, the Ancient Order of United Workmen, Nobles of the Mystic Shrine, and now the Knights of Honor add a degree that requires the plumed chappeau, the sword, baldric and all the trappings for show only. And so the mind of man seems to glory in the tinsel of gaudy uniforms.

We heard a prominent Mason-a Noble of the Mystic Shrineboast the other day, that his Temple had as fine robes for officers