Freemasonry and the Anti-Christian Movement - Rev. E. Cahill

Appendix I:
Protests and Replies

On November 2, 1929, about six weeks after the appearance of the first edition of the present work, a letter of protest from the official spokesman of the Freemasons of Ireland appeared in the Irish Independent and the Belfast Telegraph (an Orange paper). The letter drew forth rejoinders, which were published in the Irish Independent; and the controversy aroused keen public interest. Practically all the Irish Catholic weeklies and monthlies as well as the English Catholic Times (in one issue only) and Universe devoted considerable space to it, week after week. It was noticed and commented on even by some of the Continental papers. Neither the Irish Times, however, nor the Cork Examiner, nor the English dailies circulating in Ireland, nor any of the Dublin evening papers or the non-Catholic weeklies alluded to it. As the letters serve to illustrate the methods and general attitude of the Masonic body and incidentally throw much light on the whole subject of Freemasonry, we think it worth while to reprint the whole correspondence.

The narrative portions throughout as well as the headings over the letters and the footnotes are from the present writer.


Nov. 2, 1929.
"To the Editor Irish Independent.

"Sir,—I have read carefully within the last few days an amazing book recently published under above title—I say amazing, because I can find scarcely one word of truth in it from cover to cover. I hesitate to accuse anyone of the standing and position of the author of willful perversion of the truth, and would rather conclude that he is one of those enthusiasts, or fanatics, who can only see what they wish to see, and believe what they wish to believe.

It has never been the custom of the Masonic Order to enter into newspaper controversies with its detractors, and I do not propose to do so now, but this book, written by a distinguished member of the Jesuit Order, bearing the approval of the Censor, and the Imprimatur of the Roman Archbishop of Dublin, and published in a country the majority of whose inhabitants belong to the Roman Church, is in a different category to the letters and articles which have been appearing in such profusion lately in some of the minor clerical organs; and demands a reply from someone whose position in the Masonic Order qualifies him to speak with authority.

Standing in the Order.

Your readers will be able to judge whether I am so qualified. I was initiated into Craft Masonry exactly forty-nine years ago, and received into the Ancient and Accepted Rite six weeks later. I have passed the Chair in every degree of Masonry worked in these islands.

I have been for nine years Deputy Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, and am also Lieutenant-Commander of the Supreme Council of the Thirty-third Degree of the Antient and Accepted Rite, so I may claim some knowledge of my subject.

In addition, this letter is written with the full sanction and approval of the Earl of Donoughmore, Grand Master of Irish Masonry, and of Col, Sharman-Crawford, Sovereign Grand Commander of the Thirty-third Degree.

To deal in detail with every erroneous statement contained in this book would entail a volume as large as itself, so I will content myself with refuting some of the more important accusations brought against the Order.

Not Secret

Freemasonry is not a "Secret Society" [1]. The essence of a secret society is secrecy of membership and secrecy of object. The names of all the leading Freemasons are published and can be learnt by any member of the public, and the names of all Freemasons are kept in registers which, under the common law of the country, can be inspected by the civil government should they desire to do so.

The aims and objects of the Order are published in the "Laws and Constitutions" which anyone can buy and read. True, Masonry has its secrets, every society has, even the Society of Jesus to which the author belongs.[2]

It is quite true that Freemasons all the world over regard each other as brothers with the same aims and aspirations, but this only applies where there is mutual recognition between Grand Lodges.

Recognition Refused.

Certain soi-disant Grand Lodges on the Continent of Europe, and in Latin countries, having denied and rejected the first and greatest of all Masonic landmarks, belief in God, have been refused recognition by the Grand Lodges of England and Ireland, and consequently are not held by us to be freemasons at all. We have absolutely no communication with them, our members are forbidden to enter their Lodges under penalty of expulsion, and our Lodges are forbidden to receive their members as visitors.

Neither England nor Ireland has ever attended, or will ever attend, any convention or assembly in which one of these bodies takes part. [4] The best known of these unrecognised bodies is the Grand Orient of France.

We are accused of being irreligious, and even worse, "Devil-Worshippers" and "Synagogues of Satan." Now in Ireland most of the bishops and higher dignitaries of the Church of Ireland, as well as a large percentage of the minor clergy, and the heads of the Presbyterian Church belong to the Order.

From the author's point of view, no doubt, they are all heretics; but I do not think anyone, except the most rabid fanatics, could describe them as "Anti-Christian" or "Devil-Worshippers." The citizens of Dublin who witnessed the two great Christian and Masonic services at St. Patrick's in 1925, and Christ Church in 1927, will know if these epithets are deserved.

The Order is also accused of responsibility for all the political troubles of the world during the last two hundred years—murders, revolutions, rebellions, and outrages of all kinds.

Our membership is sufficient answer to this charge. Not only has the Royal Family of England been closely associated with Freemasonry ever since its rebirth in 1717, but in two of the Scandinavian countries—Denmark and Sweden—the King himself is by law the Grand Master. The rolls of membership contain the names of those most prominent in every walk of life—landowners, captains of industry, the most distinguished members of every profession, scientists—in a word, the very class which suffers most from political unrest and upheaval.[5]

The Origin

The Ancient and Accepted Rite was instituted by Frederick II of Prussia, called Frederick the Great, with the avowed object of combating the wave of irreligion and anarchy which threatened to overwhelm Europe in the eighteenth century. Does the author hold Irish Freemasons responsible for the political outrages and assassinations which have disgraced our own island within recent years?

The chapter dealing with Masonic organisation is simply ludicrous. Freemasonry has no connection with any other society whatsoever, and the terms "Imperfect Freemasonry" and "White Masonry" [6] convey no meaning to us. Some societies have modelled their ritual and procedure on Masonic forms and some have even adopted quasi-Masonic dress, but there the connection ends. Masonry does not seek to influence them, nor do they influence Masonry.

The writer infers that every association which is not under the direct control and guidance of the clerics of his Church is Masonic, and therefore evil,[7] even including such bodies as the Young Men's Christian Association, archaeological, geological, musical, or agricultural societies. This is manifestly absurd.

Order of Illuminati.

The old accusation of the Illuminati and Carbonari being realty Masonic associations is trotted out again. The Order of the Illuminati was founded in 1776 by one Adam Weishaupt, in the very same year in which he was initiated in a Lodge belonging to the "Strict Observance." He had tried unsuccessfully to start it ten years earlier, in 1766. He tried at once to graft it on to Freemasonry, but again failed entirely to do so.

The Order of Illuminati was suppressed in 1784 by the Elector of Bavaria, the country of its origin, and disappeared until it was revived some years later in Italy, where it dragged out a very precarious existence till its total disappearance after a few years. It never had any vogue in England or Ireland. Its objects were in direct conflict with those of true Masonry.

It is doubtful whether Weishaupt himself can be legitimately called a Freemason at all since he was initiated in the "Strict Observance" an unorthodox body which had no existence except on the Continent and was not recognised by the Mother Grand Lodges of England or Ireland. [8]

As for any connection between the Carbonari and Freemasonry it is sufficient to note one clause of the Carbonari oath:—4# I swear undying hatred to all Masonry and its atrocious protectors.

The allegation of Jewish influence is an entire myth, and an example of how prejudice can distort the minds and obscure the reason of some men who in other matters are capable of judging dispassionately. No doubt there is a certain amount of anti-Semitic prejudice in every Christian, and the history of our religion makes this inevitable. Also the relations, financial and other, of the Chosen Race with the rest of the world, have not improved matters in this respect. But this prejudice can be carried to extremes.

It is quite true that the origin and the legends of Craft and Royal Arch Masonry are based on the Old Testament; so are those of Christianity itself. But to say that Freemasonry, and especially the so-called "Higher Degrees" are controlled by Jews is more than absurd, it is puerile. Before any Freemason of the Craft Lodges or the Royal Arch can aspire to join either the Order of the Temple, or the Antient and Accepted Rite, he must avow his unqualified belief in the Christian religion, and his acceptance of the doctrine of the Holy and Undivided Trinity. Should he not do so, he cannot be accepted. Consequently no Jew, except a converted Jew, can be a member of any of these degrees, much less exercise any control. [11]

There is no such thing as an inner circle in Freemasonry. Each Grand Lodge or Supreme Council is "sovereign" in its own country, and its rulers are well known to the public at large. In Ireland the Earl of Donoughmore is Grand Master, and I am his deputy and chief executive officer. Neither ol us is a Jew, nor are we subject to any Jewish influence, and I do not fancy that either of us would stand interference even from a syndicate composed of all the Jewish bankers and financiers of the world.

The Sovereign Grand Commander of the Thirty-third Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Rite is Col. the Right Hon. R. G. Sharman-Crawford, and again I am his lieutenant and chief executive officer. The same thing applies to the Supreme Council as to the Grand Lodge.

The idea of a mythical Jew with Supreme Powers over the whole of the Masonic world is simply grotesque. [12]

Annual Election.

Grand Lodge which consists of all actual and past Masters living, is so jealous of any undue power or influence being exercised by any one individual that it insists on the Grand Master being subject to annual election or re-election. Any Grand Master who was thought to seek to usurp undue power would be given a very short shrift indeed in Ireland,

The author's bibliography may seem to the uninstructed to be an imposing one, but from a Masonic point of view it is more remarkable for its omissions than its inclusions. Hardly any of the modern Masonic authors whose writings are admitted to carry any weight are quoted. The only Irish works cited are Chetwode Crawley's "Caemeteria Hibernica" and the recent History of the Grand Lodge of Ireland.

Both of these are purely historical works of no value for the purpose of argument. Yarker, who is quoted as an English authority, has been totally discredited in Masonic eyes. The Jew, Ragon, who is by no means regarded as a Sacred Author by us, dealt entirely with Continental Masonry as it was a century or more ago, and knew little or nothing of the craft as practised in the mother countries where it had its birth.[13]

The non-Masonic writers whom he quotes so extensively: Deschamps, Benoit, Eckert, Gruber, Webster, etc.—were as ignorant as he is himself, and drew mainly on their imaginations for their so-called facts. [14] Their testimony is of no value whatever.

Freemasonry makes no extravagant claims to perfection. It does not profess to be a religion itself, or a substitute for revealed religion. On the contrary, it exhorts its members to practise diligently that religion to which they belong, and to obey that Church of which they are professing members. In the higher degrees, as I have said above, a member must be a professing Christian, but in every degree from that of Entered Apprentice upwards, he must avow his belief in God, [15] in the immortality of the soul, and in the brotherhood of man. He must be a good and loyal citizen of whatever country he lives in; to quote an old charge: "Ever remembering that Nature has implanted in his breast a sacred and indissoluble attachment towards that country whence he derived his birth and infant culture."

We are told that Pope Leo XIII said forty-two years ago: "Would that all would judge of the tree by its fruits." Irish Freemasonry asks for nothing better than to be judged by its fruits.

Claude Cane,
Deputy Grand Master of Ireland and Lieut, Grand Commander 33.

Author's Notes in Response to the Deputy Grand Master of Ireland

[1] Freemasonry is continually referred to as a secret society by the British administration in Ireland during the nineteenth century and later.

[2] It is not because its members are unknown, that Freemasonry is condemned, but for other reasons which are explained In detail in chap, vi, p 129. It in untrue that the real aims af the Masonic Order are contained in the published Constitutions. They are In fact unknown even to the majority of its own members.

The implication that the Society of Jesus is a Secret Society is manifestly false. Neither the Society nor any other religious order (for all are the same in this matter) has any oaths of secrecy; nor any secrets (sworn or otherwise) from its ecclesiastical superiors (viz. the Holy Sec); nor indeed any secrets of any kind except in the sense that the domestic concerns of every family or society are always more or loss private and confidential,

[3] The number of Freemasons (as given in the official Masonic publications) of the Anglo-Saxon type includes 4,100,000 out of a total of 4.400,600. Of the remaining 300,000, those namely of the non-Anglo-Saxon section, probably more than a half or two-thirds are formally recognized by the Grand Lodges of England and Ireland. Even the small residue, probably less than 150,000 (the "soi-disant" lodges referred to above) are linked up, through the medium of liaison bodies such as the Lodge Alpina of Switzerland into what (is called in the official Masonic organs the "World-Chain of Freemasonry" (Cf. pp. 43-4 supra and Appendix II), and are in fact recognised as brothers, and as members of one great body, even while formal and public recognition is withheld.

[4] Cf. Appendices II and V infra as commentaries upon these Statements,
[5] For commentary on this paragraph, see Index under words Dupes and Figure heads.
[6] These terms are not Masonic; but for examples of the realities which they signify see Appendices III and IV.
[7] This is a mistatement. The author does hold that a religious association in order to be lawful must be under the control of the Church. But he nowhere suggests that a purely secular association, such as a musical or agricultural society need be under the direct control of the Church,

[8] Whether or not Weishaupt was formallv initiated into the Order in a duly constituted Masonic lodge or the Illuminati formallv recognised are details of Masonic erudition which have little or no interest for the non -Masonic enquirer. The essential point is that the principles and aims of Weishaupt and the Illuminati were incorporated into Freemasonry in the eighteenth century; that the published documents of the Illuminati, which all may read contain the fullest exposition of the Masonic aims and principles, formally accepted and championed by the Masonic leaders, and consistently followed out in Masonic policy and action down even to our own day. Besides the references given in the text on this matter, viz., Barniel, Webster, Robison, etc., cf. the recently published volume! The Secret Power Behind the Revolution, by Yicomte Leon de Poncini (Dosivell Publishing Co., 10 Essex Street, London, W.C.2, price 6s.), in which whole series of Masonic pronouncements are quoted, in proof of the above. See also Rev, Intern . des Soc. Sec . (passim) and La Partis Occultists (a monthly supplement to the latter), in which a new French translation of the Documents of the Illuminati was published in the latter months of 1929.

[9] That the Carbonari were Masonic is asserted by Pius VII and Leo XIII: and is quite evident from their history and general character, (Cf. Cath. Envelop., vol. ill r p, 330). As to the clause quoted from their supposed oath (they had in fact several oaths like the Freemasons) the statement is too vague to deal with (in their beginnings the Carbonari were probably not Masonic), and in any case would prove nothing. The Carbonari were ready to publish, if useful for their purpose, forged constitutions, as they actually forged and published a Papal bull confirming their Association (cf. I*.),

[10] Dr, Reichcl, one of the most authoritative spokesmen of Freemasonry in Germany (German Freemasonry is supposed to be of he same type as the Anglo-Saxon), writes in the Wiener Freimaurcr Zeitung (Feb., 1929): " Catholicism and Freemasonry . . , are two contrary theses . . . two irreducible concepts of the Universe which it ia impossible to bring into agreement '* (ef. R . /. 5 . S„ 1920, No. 23. p. 565).

[11] The intimate association between Freemasonry and modem Judaism is treated in chap, iv, and passim. The existence of certain lodges, or even rites, from which Jews are excluded proves nothing. Such an arrangement exists also in some of the cont 'mental countries, and does not prevent the Jewish lodges of B'nai BYith from exercising practical control.

[12] See Index under word Ccmtrot , for the present writer's statements (which arc misrepresented here) on this matter.

[13] Yorker is referred to only twice in the present work, and Ragon only five times. Cf. on the other hand, Waite's New Encyclopedia Freemasonry, vol. i, pp. xxix and xxxi, where it will be seen that Waite, a Masonic present-day writer and confessedly of the highest authority, refers 13 times to Yarker (although he sometimes disagrees with him), and 29 times to Kagon, who (with Anderson) is the author he quotes most frequently of all.

[14] Ihe estimate here given of the non-Masonic writers quoted in the present work is out of harmony with the opinions of some of the highest Masonic authorities. 'Thus Dr. Reichel, a leading German Freemason, refers in the Wiener Freitnaurer Zeitung (Feb., 1929) to Father Gruber, S,|„ asa" distinguished adversary animated with a regard equal [to that of his Masonic adversaries] tor justice and truth " and, again. 11 celebrated for his Masonic erudition M R S-* * 1929* no - 2 3 - Pp* 565—6). Again, Waite in his Encyclopedia of Freemasonry (vol. ii. p. 368) writes of Robison, Barrucl and Eckert, three of the non -Masonic authors referred to above: *' Professor Robison, Abbd Barruel and Counsellor Eckert would all repay reading at the present day, especially by a student w'ho could be at the pains of checking them one against another. Ihe first two authors wrote with no notion that each had a com* petitor covering the same ground. The complete distinction between them in style and treatment serves only to bring out , . . the practical identity of their conclusions. , , Eckert . . . had every opportunity of profiting by both his precursors.

[15] Not necessarily in the true God (sec pp. 32-40 supra). As to the real attitude of Freemasonry towards Christianity it may be inferred from such passages as the following:, which occurs in Pike's Inner Sanctuary, iv, 389 (quoted in Caih. Encyclop. ioc. cit,). "The aping Christianity of Blue Masonry made it an emasculated and impotent society." Cf. chap, ii, iii, v and vi, where this matter is treated at length.


Nov. 5.
To the Editor Irish Independent.

Sir,—Col. Cane took up on Saturday a considerable amount of your space with a defence of Freemasonry; I ask that you give a little to a brief exposure of the plausibilities of that document.

I. Col. Cane gives the go-by to the primary count in the Catholic indictment of Freemasonry—viz., that it is secret and oath-bound. He has something to say, it is true, about secrecy—this I deal with further on; but he makes no attempt to give reasons for the oaths. Is it that he is unable or that he is unwilling to give the "why" of the oath?

An oath postulates that something of importance is behind it. What is the important something that the Freemason oath connotes? Subsidiary to this, I would ask CoL Cane what authority has the Freemason Order to administer oaths to anybody?

The power to administer oaths inheres in only two authorities—the constituted authorities of the State itseif and the constituted religious authorities—in either case for matters only of sufficient importance. Will Col. Cane commit himself to the assertion that any Tom, Dick, or Harry is entitled to start an oath-bound society fashioned after his own fancies?

The Defence.

2. CoL Cane's defence of Masonic secrecy (in addition oath-bound) is a very lame one. He tries to insinuate something about the Jesuits, but that Society takes no oath of secrecy. Everyone knows and admits that there are intimate affairs of any society, professional body, business establishment—aye, family—which are properly secret, but the secrecy is not hedged with an oath.

3. CoL Cane tells how English and Irish Masonry have cut themselves off from Continental Masonry, but very astutely he says nothing about Scotch Masonry being still en rapport with the Continental lodges, or about the English and Irish lodges being en rapport with the Scotch. So at the best Irish Masonry and Continental are just "cousins once removed."

Re-made in Germany

I pass over, in order to avoid unduly lengthening this letter, other things in CoL Cane's defence that I could deal with. I shall add only that, to judge from CoL Cane's letter. Freemasonry of recent revival is getting ashamed of its plebeian origin; for the Colonel tells us that it was brougnt back to life by Frederick the Great of Prussia to stem the tide of irreligion in that country. So, then, it appears, Modem Freemasonry, though it cannot be labelled "Made in Germany," has been at least re-made there!

We do not deny the right of Frederick to be called the Great as a ruler, soldier, politician, and he was no proscriber of the Catholic religion, but to fancy that he, the friend of Voltaire and the Encyclopedists—those mockers of all religions—the cynic with regard to religion that he reveals himself to be in his "Correspondence"—that this German potentate was moved to revive Freemasonry to combat irreligion is a draft upon credulity which one does not feel disposed to honour.

Editor, Irish Catholic.
55 Middle Abbey Street, Dublin.


Nov. 6.
To the Editor Irish Independent.

Sir,—In my letter in the Irish Independent last Saturday I said that I did not intend to enter into a newspaper discussion. There is, however, just one point made by the Editor of the Irish Catholic—a perfectly fair one—which I think I may answer without violating that condition.

He complains that I say nothing "astutely" about Scottish Freemasonry. There is nothing astute about it. Father Cahill, in the book I am dealing with, makes only very fleeting and unimportant reference to Scottish Freemasonry, and none to its present condition. Secondly, I am not a Scottish Mason, or a member of the Scottish Constitution, therefore I have no right to speak for it. I am a member of the English Constitution and an English Past Master, though that tact does not entitle me to speak for the Grand Lodge of England as I can for the Grand Lodge of Ireland.

But I have every reason to believe, speaking with the authority of the Grand Master of Ireland, that on the question of recognition of those soi-disant Grand Lodges which reject the first and greatest of all Masonic landmarks, the belief in God, the three sister Grand Lodges of England, Ireland, and Scotland are in perfect accord, i.e., we refuse to recognise them, and do not recognise their members as brother Masons. [1]

Claude Cane, D.G.M,

Author's Response to the Deputy Grand Master of Ireland

[1] The term Scottish Masonry may be understood in either of two senses, viz.:—(1) Freemasonry as actually practised in Scotland, or (2) That section of the Order called The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, which is practiced all over the world. This Rite has no less than 14 lodges (or chapters) in Dublin alone. The Editor of the Irish Catholic evidently alludes to this A. and A. S. Rite in his letter of Nov. 5. The Colonel's reply refers only to Scottish Masonry in the other sense. One may note also that the Colonel in all his letters avoids the use of the word Scottish when referring to this rite as practised in Ireland, and calls it the Ancient and Accepted Rite, although in the Freemasons' Calendar it gets its proper name, viz.: A. and A. S. Rite. This is the rite that Pike treats of in his celebrated book. Morals and Dogma of the A. and A. S. Rite. Possibly one of the reasons for Freemasons' tactful attitude in referring to this section of Freemasonry in Ireland is the fact that the A. and A. S. Rite is commonly supposed to be the most profoundly anti-Christian of all sections of Freemasonry, and that, too, notwithstanding the fact that in the lodges of the Anglo-American section of it, the members must make a profession of Christianity (of some sort).

Nov. 7. To the Editor Irish Independent.

Sir,—Col. Cane generously breaks his "no controversy" rule; he does so, I presume, because on one minor point in my letter . . . he can make a score. . . . What does matter is that Col. Cane makes no attempt to enlighten us on the objections made to Freemasonry by Catholics. The chief of these are:— 1) That it is oath-hound, 2) That it is secret, 3) That it arrogates a self-conferred right to administer an oath.

As on these major points Col. Cane is dumb, plainly . . . he is unable to give answers that would satisfy any rational being.

I claim, then, judgment by default for the Catholic case. The high-and-mighty if not hoity-toity attitude—that he will "enter into no controversy"—"cuts no ice." Striking that attitude is a device so outworn that no one can be deceived by it. In plainest English, Col. Cane does not and will not answer, because he cannot.

The Editor, Irish Catholic.
55 Middle Abbey Street, Dublin.


Nov. 8.
To the Editor Irish Independent.

Sir,—My attention has been called to a letter from Col. Claude Cane in the Irish Independent of Nov. 2, in which the writer finds serious fault with my recently published book, "Freemasonry and the Anti-Christian Movement." For although the writer of the letter does not mention my name, and the title is incorrectly quoted, my book is evidently the one referred to.

Having been just requested by the publishers to revise the book for a second edition, I would have sincerely welcomed a reasoned critique from a Masonic apologist. Such a critique, even though hostile, would probably enable me to rectify minor inaccuracies and mistakes which it is peculiarly difficult to avoid in treating so elusive and chameleon-like a subject. The Colonel does point out one definite inaccuracy (which shall be corrected in the forthcoming edition), the misspelling of the word Caementaria. Otherwise his letter is disappointing.

Col. Cane's Allegations.

The very first sentence, in which he declares that he "can scarcely find one word of truth in the book from cover to cover," gives a foretaste of what is to follow. He does not seriously discuss the evidence advanced in support of my conclusions, but denounces the conclusions themselves as "absurd," "puerile," "grotesque," "ludicrous," while I myself as well as the eminent non-Masonic authors, Protestant as well as Catholic, whose works I have utilised in my short sketch, are described as "ignorant," "fanatics," "who drew on their imaginations for their so-called facts," "who see only what they wish to see. and believe only what they wish to believe."

Papal Decisions.

My book, as I state expressly in the Preface, is intended primarily for the Catholic reader, who accepts the Church's teaching. Hence my treatment of Freemasonry is naturally based on the Papal pronouncements, which for Catholics are decisive, and for all who know the circumstances and customary proceeding of the Holy See must, as I explain at some length in my book, carry very great weight.

The strong expressions that I use and which Col. Cane so much objects to, are quoted from the Papal decisions. Whatever the Colonel may say or think, every Catholic knows that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth, the authentic teacher of faith and morals, and the best-informed as well as the highest authority in Christendom on all matters connected with the spiritual well-being of the Christian people.

During the last two centuries no fewer than eleven Popes have, one after another, condemned Freemasonry in the most uncompromising terms, and with unwavering consistency. They give in detail, and in the clearest words, the reasons for their condemnations. They charge Freemasonry with occult and criminal activities, with infamy blasphemy and sacrilege, with treason against the State, with anarchical and revolutionary principles, with being a very Synagogue of Satan, whose direct aim and object is to destroy the Church of Christ, and to bring back to the world the worst and most degraded forms of paganism. Christian Governments are again and again reminded of their urgent duty to suppress the reprobate sect within their territories (See Chap, VI.).

Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry.

These condemnations affect all the different sections of Freemasonry, including that of the Anglo-Saxon type, which is in fact the parent body, and by far the most important, forming as it does more than thirteen-fourteenths of the whole. The scope and object of my book is to illustrate these Papal decisions, and to show from approved Masonic sources and incontrovertible facts of history how well founded they are.

Non-Masonic Writers.

Naturally I utilise the works of several non-Masonic writers of recognised authority, Protestant as well as Catholic. All these the Colonel dismisses as being as ignorant as I am myself, and as "drawing on their imaginations for their so-called facts;" in other words, as falsfiers of history, or—liars. Prominent among the writers whom the Colonel thus describes is the venerable Father Hermann Gruber, S.J., now a very old man, and a scholar of European fame. Father Gruber has devoted most of his life to an exhaustive study of Freemasonry in all its various phases and ramifications, and is recognised as among the very best living authorities on the subject.

Anglo-American Freemasonry.

His long article in the Catholic Encyclopedia (every statement in which is accurately documented with fullest references to the best Masonic authorities) deals primarily with Anglo-American Freemasonry. In this, as well as in his several other works on Freemasonry, the writer shows himself a model of careful research and calm, dispassionate judgment.

Mgr. Jouin, from whose works I also quote, and who, too falls under Col. Cane's summary condemnation, is, like Father Gruber, now a very old man. He is the head of an active group of French writers, and the Editor of the Paris weekly review, Revue Internationale des Societes Secretes.

This review, and indeed all Mgr. Jouin's writings are a repertory of Masonic documents of English-speaking as well as Continental countries, and it is principally for these documents that his works and his review are so often referred to in my book.

Father Deschamps, S.J., whose book on secret societies I have also utilised, died some fifty years ago as a comparatively young man. His book, which was posthumously edited, went through several editions within a very few years, and is generally recognised as a classic on the portion of the subject which he specially treats—viz., the external activities of Freemasonry in the different American and European countries during the nineteenth century.

I might, if space permitted, go through the credentials of the several other writers whom I quote—Barruel, Eckert Robison, Webster, etc., etc. The last three, by the way, are Protestants, but all apparently are indiscriminately and summarily rejected by Col. Cane. The Colonel may disagree with some of the views of these writers or may deny the validity of their inferences, but he cannot call in question the authenticity of the Masonic documents, official Masonic pronouncements, speeches, etc., with which their books are filled (and for which I especially utilise them), nor the reality of the historical facts which they adduce in support of their conclusions.

To assert that they are ignorant of Freemasonry, or that they "drew on their imaginations for their so-called facts," is simply a reckless statement, and seems to suggest that Col. Cane has not made a serious study of their works.

Masonic Authors Quoted.

Of the more than thirty Masonic authors whom I quote the Colonel challenges two, and only two—one, Yarker (who, by the way, held the highest offices in some of the recognised Anglo-American rites), as being now "totally discredited in Masonic eyes," and the other, Ragon, as being not well acquainted with Anglo-American Freemasonry. Even if these objections were well founded, which I do not admit, all the main conclusions of my book remain quite unaffected.

The Colonel does not venture to question definitely the reliability of the many other leading witnesses invoked, especially that of Mackey and Pike, who are the principal ones, and who are universally recognised as among the very highest Masonic authorities on Anglo-American Freemasonry. Fr. Gruber, whom I have just referred to, gives in the Catholic Encyclopedia a selection from the encomiums on Albert Pike, which appeared in the Anglo-American official Masonic organs, on the occasion of his death (1891), and in which he is described as the "Prophet of Freemasonry." "The greatest Masonic scholar and writer of the nineteenth century, whose name has been a household word wherever Masonry is known," etc., etc. (See Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. ix, p. 788. See also Bibliography, pp. xvii-xviii supra).

Points of Detail.

As to the several points of detail, to which Col. Cane refers, where he so summarily rejects my conclusions—Masonic belief or unbelief in God, the antagonism of Freemasonry to Christianity (notwithstanding the existence in some places of so-called "Christian" lodges), its connection with Illuminism, the existence of inner Masonic circles, usually unknown to the rank and file, and often unknown even to members who apparently hold high office in the Order, the universal oneness or solidarity of Freemasonry, the Jewish influence in it, etc. It is manifestly impossible to discuss these matters satisfactorily in a letter. They are, each and all, treated more or less fully in my book. It is for the reader of the book itself to judge whether or not I have made assertions without solid foundations.

Masonic Defence.

What are the Colonel's positive proofs in refutation of my conclusions? All, or practically all his arguments rest on one point, and that is his own authority. He gives his credentials very naively, and apparently without realising the humour of the situation. He has been a Freemason for fully 49 years. He has attained to the thirty-third degree in the Ancient Scottish Rite. He "has passed the Chair in every degree of Masonry worked in these islands," including, apparently, the degrees of "Knight of the Sun," "Knight Radosh," the degree of the "Sovereign Prince of the Royal Secret," and even a degree still higher.

Sworn to Secrecy.

I do not wish to question the Colonel's sincerity or good faith (for Freemasonry does seem to involve strange incongruities and apparent inconsistencies), but what are the facts of the case? At his first installation into the Masonic Order forty-nine years ago, Col. Cane must have sworn, and that, too, under awful penalties, "to hide, conceal and never to reveal any part or parts, point or points, of the secrets or mysteries of or belonging to the Free and Accepted Masons, which were then known to him or which he might in any way afterwards learn . . . not to write those secrets, indite, print, carve, mark, engrave, or otherwise delineate them, or cause or suffer the same to be done by others, if in his power to prevent it, on anything moveable or immoveable, whereby . . . any letter, character or figure, or even the least trace thereof may become legible or intelligible, etc."

Unconditional Obedience.

Under similar dreadful penalties he presumably must have solemnly sworn at his different initiations into the higher degrees to be true to such obligations as the following: "To obey all the laws and regulations of the Order, and accept all its doctrines and beliefs"; "to consecrate his whole life, strength, influence and intellect to the ends of the Order of the Knight Kadosh" "To obey without hesitation any order, whatever it may be, of Masonic superiors." (See Catholic Encyclopedia , voL xx, p. 780, where Father Gruber gives a selection of the ordinary Masonic oaths, the words of which he quotes from Pike's work, entitled. The Inner Sanctuary, iii, p. 68, and iv, PP 470,488, 479, etc.)

Has the Colonel taken these or similar oaths? If so, has he meant them seriously? Seeing that the matter of the letter to which I am now replying apparently comes under the tenor of these oaths, has it been written in accordance with or in violation of them? In any case, can his testimony be accepted as reliable?

Edward Cahill, S.J.
Milltown Park, Dublin.


Nov. 9. To the Editor Irish Independent,

Sir,—As a member of the above [viz. Freemasonry] for over sixty years, allow me to ask your readers why we cannot be left alone. We are not interfering with anyone, and are loyal citizens of the country in which God has placed us, and we welcome the "brotherhood of all Christian denominations," and are well known to our neighbours, who can judge of our mode of life. All we ask for is "freedom of thought" which in a free country should not be denied us.

In the Irish Independent of July 27, 1927, the following letter appeared over the name and address of the writer:—

"Those of us who style ourselves Catholics would do well to consider the words of Sunday's Gospel—'By their fruits you shall know them,' etc. If we only adopted the same spirit of Christian charity to one another as the Freemasons do, if we only practised a little of their shrewd business capacity and integrity, there would be less unemployment and trouble in this country, and, I am sure, less murder."

Huband Gregg. (Old Windsor.)


Nov 9. To the Editor Irish Independent

Sir,—. . . As one who has read Father Cahill's book, and marvelled at the learning as well as sound judgment that writer has displayed in marshalling his facts and naming his authorities. Freemason authorities almost all, either directly or indirectly, I agree, that no third person can arrive at a just conclusion regarding the matters in dispute unless he studies pari passu Father Cahill's book and Col. Cane's letters. To carry on the controversy in the Irish Independent would entail a great quantity of needless repetition. Father Cahill evidently is not impressed by Col. Cane's arguments, for it seems that he has decided to let his book speak for itself, . . Father Cahill's thesis—that Freemasonry is an anti-Christian movement and an anti-Christian organisation—has been entirely evaded by Col. Cane. The latter makes what capital he can out of the fact (of which he does not profess to be absolutely sure) that the Scottish Rite (with whom the Irish Freemasons are in friendly agreement) refuse to have intercourse with such Continental rites or branches of the Order as profess Atheism.

Even supposing that Col. Cane is right in his uncertain affirmation, this does not in the least weaken Father Cahill's case, nor answer the Jesuit's terrible indictment against Freemasonry. Surely an organisation that, whilst it excludes Atheists (who axe very few), admits into its ranks Jews, Mohammedans, Buddhists, Theosophists, and other believers in a God (of some sort), and preaches a religious fraternity with all these powerful and vast groups of anti-Christians, surely, I say, such an organisation is in itself anti-Christian. . . .

Surely no Catholic can conscientiously join such a body, even if it had no secret oath, illegally administered, to serve unknown masters and to obey unknown future commands (against the laws of the Catholic Church many of these commands would surely be). Nay, every Catholic is even bound to fight strenuously against a body such as this is. . . .

A. E. COMERFORD. Dublin.


The following letter, which apparently was sent to the Irish Independent about this time was returned to the sender unpublished. The latter sent it on to the present writer with a covering note:

Nov. 12. To the Editor Irish Independent.

Sir,—Those who are interested in the controversy on Freemasonry would do well to look through the book entitled English and Irish Freemasons and their Foreign Brothers, published by Gill & Sons in 1877. The book, winch may be seen in the National Library and the Library of Trinity College, is no less startling than Father Cahill's recent work.

The writer gives the text of some oaths taken by Royal Arch Masons, who form an important section of Anglo-Irish Freemasonry, and who all, according to Colonel Claude Cane, are professing Christians. Here are some of the oaths:

"I . . . promise and swear that I will assist a Companion Royal Arch Mason when I see him engaged in any difficulty and will espouse his cause so far as to extricate him from the same whether he he right or wrong."

"I swear that I will keep all the secrets of a Companion Royal Arch Mason without exception."

It would be interesting to get from Colonel Cane his views of the position in view of such oaths as these of a Companion Arch Mason on the Bench, on a jury, or in the witness box when the prisoner in the dock happens to be also a Royal Arch Mason.



Nov. 11. To the Editor Irish Independent.

Sir,—There is only one thing in Father Cahill's letter that I feel called upon to answer. He complains that the title of bis book is incorrectly quoted by me. The caption at the top of the letter I sent the Irish Independent was "Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement," the exact title of his book. It was you, Mr. Editor, who altered it, no doubt, for good and sufficient reasons of your own.

As Father Cahill says, it is quite impossible to cover the ground in newspaper articles. I do not question Father Cahill's honesty and sincerity, but I do say that he is absolutely mistaken.

I am quite willing to meet Father Cahill, as man to man, at any time which he may arrange with me, and discuss the question impartially. Whether I shall succeed in convincing him, or he will succeed in convincing me, I cannot say, but of one thing I am certain, the reverend father will come away knowing more of what Freemasonry really is than he ever did before. I cannot make a fairer offer than this.

Claude Cane, D.G.M,

Alen's Grove, Celbridge.

To this letter the present writer made no reply for reasons which shall appear later.


Nov. 11.

To the Editor Irish Independent.

Sir,—The Bishop of Durham, Past Grand Chaplain (England), in a sermon preached in York Minister, asked:

"Why, therefore, had it come about that throughout the Latin world Freemasonry had become associated with Atheism and Anarchy?" (Times, London, July 4, 1927).

Sir Arthur Robbins is reported in the Masonic News of January 21, 1928, as having said that he returned from South America with a higher admiration for Latin Freemasonry than he could ever have gained from correspondence or reading. Sir Arthur Robbins does not seem to agree with the Bishop. Why?

Lodge of Friendship No, 12, Rio de Janeiro, was founded under Treaty between the Grand Orient of Brazil and the United Grand Lodge of England, dated December 20, 1912. Are there any lodges in France founded under Treaty between the Grard Orient of France and the United Grand Lodge of England?

Paris Congress.

Did England or Ireland send any delegates to the Masonic Congress which met in Paris in July, 1917, and passed resolutions regarding post-war settlements with respect to French and Italian claims? Everyone remembers the repudiation by the Italian Masons of the resolutions concerning Italy, and the resignation of the Italian Grand Master, Ettore Ferrari, who was accused of having let his own country down.

A dear statement in answer to these questions would tend to save the discussion on the present aims and objects of Masonry from degenerating into a barren and acrimonious logomachy.

P. Byrne, Chancellor's Orchard, Kilkenny,


Nov. 11, To the Editor Irish Independent.

Sir,—Col. Claude Cane in the Irish Independent of November 2 assures us that "Neither England nor Ireland has ever attended, or will attend, any convention or assembly in which one of these bodies (that is, certain Grand Lodges on the Continent of Europe and in Latin countries) takes part. The best known of these bodies is the Grand Orient of France." He states: "We have absolutely no communication with them."

In view of this very definite statement, an article appearing in the Osservatore Romano quite recently may be of interest. The article is headed "The Children of Darkness."

[Here Mr. Stack quotes some paragraphs from the article which we print in full in Appendices II and IV infra.]

From the above it is clear that there is a very powerful and active Masonic International League to which Anglo-American (and presumably Irish) Freemasonry belongs, and including all sections of the Masonic body. It is also clear that the object of the Masonic organisation is something quite different from mere benevolence and mutual aid.

Father Cahill states that Freemasonry is propagandist, and that influential Masonic paper, the Freimaurer Zeitung, as quoted in the official Vatican organ, the Osservatore Romano, bears him out. The section devoted to the Press—that is, writers and journalists—is worthy of note. The comments of the Osservatorc Romano (which are too lengthy to be reproduced) also stress this point.

The observations of Father Cahill about what he calls "White Masonry," and which CoL Cane seems to have misunderstood, by which Masonic ideals are spread abroad and a Masonic "atmosphere" created, gain force by the youth-propaganda movement spoken of at the Amsterdam Congress, and to which a good deal of importance seems to have been attached.

R. E. H. Stack. 6 Lower Fttzwilliam Street, Dublin.


Nov. 12. To the Editor Irish Independent.

Sir,—It seems impossible to close this correspondence. I said that I would not enter into a newspaper controversy, but I do not mind giving information when it is asked for. So in reply to your correspondents, P. Byrne and R. E. H. Stack, the Grand Lodge of Ireland, for whose affairs I am responsible, did not attend, send delegates to, or have anything to do with the self-styled "International" congresses mentioned, nor does it belong to the "International Masonic League," for the reasons stated in my original letter.

The Freimaurer Zeitnng and the Osservatore Romano have entirely misrepresented facts, as far as Ireland is concerned. [1]

Is it too much to ask of your correspondents who wish to criticise my original letter to read it first. It would save much trouble and waste of ink.

Claude Cake, D.G.M.

Alen's Grove, Celbridge.

[1] In view of the facts that Col. Cane is not only a member but a very high dignitary (a Past Master) of the Grand Lodge of England; and that the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Ireland (the Earl of Donoughmorc) is the official representative in Ireland of the Grand Lodge of England, it is clear that the Colonel's explanation and disavowal are not satisfactory. The Grand Lodge of England was certainly represented at the International Masonic Congress referred to: and the connection lietween the Grand Lodges of England and Ireland is avowedly of the closest kind.


Nov. 13. To the Editor Irish Independent.

Sir,—Col. Cane says that the Grand Lodge of Ireland did not send delegates to "the self-styled International Congresses mentioned." I mentioned no International Congress. I accept the Colonel's assurance that Ireland sent no delegates to the Masonic Congress which met in Paris in July, 1917. This, according to the Press reports at the time, was attended by delegates from the "Allied and Neutral Powers."

Col. Cane asks that correspondents should read his original letter. I have done so. Now that he has evidently read mine, and answered half of one of the three questions which it contained, it would be a gracious act if, in a spirit of love and without undue asperity, he were to answer the other two.

P. Byrne. Chancellor's Orchard, Kilkenny.

The Irish Independent seems to have suppressed Mr. Stack's counter-reply to Col. Cane's letter of Nov. 12. For the following passage occurs in a letter from Mr. Stack which was printed in The Standard, Nov. 30.

To the Editor of The Standard.

Sir,—In Saturday's issue of the Irish Independent appears a letter from Colonel Claude Cane, which is headed "Freemasonry," but is really a calumnious attack on the Society of Jesus.

This is the paper which refused to publish a letter of mine which I wrote (Nov. 13) in reply to the same Colonel Cane with reference to his statement that English or Irish Masonry has no connection whatever with Continental Masonry.

Colonel Cane purported to answer my first letter in a letter which was no answer at all, and my letter in reply was returned to me with "the Editor regrets, etc," I think the attitude of the Irish Independent calls for protest. Colonel Cane can get all the space he wants in the columns of the Irish Independent—even if it is to make a covert attack on a very distinguished Order—but for "mere Catholics" there is no room.

R. E. H. Stack. 6 Lower Fitzwiiliam Street, Dublin.


Nov. 14. To the Editor Irish Independent.

Sir,—Amongst the pars, in the wide-ranging "Items of Interest" column in the Irish Independent this morning is one to which I wish to draw the special attention of Col. Cane. It tells of a Masonic function in Belfast—the unveiling of a portrait of its late Grand Master in the Provincial Grand Lodge of the Masonic Province of Antrim.

In addition to other Provincial Grand Lodges, the par. tells that "the Grand Lodge of Portugal was represented." Now, in face of this, how can Col. Cane maintain, as he did in his letter of November 2 that the Irish and English Lodges have severed themselves from the Continental Lodges, and that the latter are not acknowledged?

In order to let readers understand what are the achievements oi Portuguese Freemasonry let me tell them that since 1910 the Portuguese Freemasons stirred up at least seven successful revolutions or attempts at revolution, and that in the last of these King Carlos and the Crown Prince were assassinated in the streets of Lisbon; the next heir Prince Manoel, was driven into exile ; a Republic was set up, its head being a boss Mason, and its Ministers of the same stripe; and a bitter and relentless persecution of the Catholic Church and its ministers was immediately begun.

Perhaps it was the latter fact which makes the representation of the Grand Lodge of Portugal no phenomenon in Belfast. Whether this be so or not. Col. Cane owes explanation—if he can give it. [1]

Editor Irish Catholic.

[1] The explanation of the presence of the Portuguese representative is that the Grand Orients of Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc., are formally recognised by the Grand Lodge of Ireland. The latter maintains its permanent representative at these lodges; and has counter* representatives from them in Dublin. Cl. supra , pp. 43-45; also Irish Masonic Calendar, pp. 219-222.

Col. Cane did not reply to the letters of Mr. Byrne and the Editor of the Irish Catholic (published Nov. 14); and it seemed as if the controversy had died down On November 23rd, however, the following lengthy letter from Col. Cane, which had been published in the Belfast Telegraph two days before (Nov 21) appeared in the Irish Independent:


To the Editor Irish Independent.

Sir,—Quite recently a book has been published in Dublin under the title of Freemasonry and the Anti-Christian Movement, containing a very bitter attack on the Masonic Order, and professing to expose its principles and objects as anti-Christian, Atheistic, and even worse. The author of this book is the Rev. Father E. Cahill, S.J., and it bears the "Imprimatur" of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin.

To this book I wrote a rejoinder denying in toto most of the allegations it contained! which was published in the Irish Independent and most of the leading Irish papers. It was written in my capacity of Deputy Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Ireland and also Lieut. Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Rite for Ireland, and may therefore be considered as official. What follows is not written in my official capacity and can only be considered as the individual opinion of a student of history, and a Freemason of long and varied experience.

For several reasons I was surprised to see that the author of such a book is a member of the Society of Jesus. We have always been told that the Jesuits are distinguished above all others of their Church for learning, broad-mindedness, and liberality of thought. And further, the history of their Order and that of the Masonic Order are in many ways curiously similar. Both have been subject during the whole period of their existence to calumny misrepresentation, and even persecution. The mass of hostile literature dealing with Jesuitism is probably even greater than that dealing with Masonry.

Historical Accusations.

I do not, like Father Cahill, take for granted the truth of all the accusations brought by its enemies against a society of which I am not a member, and consequently have no inner knowledge, nor even the so-called revelations of renegade members.

I can only judge by historical facts which are the property of everyone. I have no feelings of enmity towards the Society of Jesus; on the contrary, I find in it much to admire—its discipline, its unwavering courage and persistency through good and evil report, and, above all, the great services it has rendered to the cause of education, for which it was originally founded when education may be said to have hardly existed.

But when Father Cahill condemns Masonry as a "secret society," and also for the objectionable character of its oaths, I must reply that Jesuitism is far more a secret society in the true meaning of the term than Masonry is. The name of every Freemason of every grade is available—there is no secrecy whatsoever about the membership; the names of the thousands of affiliates to Jesuitism all over the world, known in France as "Jesuites de Robe Courte," are kept a profound secret.

--------------- START RESPONSE -------------------

[1] It is unjust and offensive to any lawfully constituted Society, and much more to a religious Order, which is the servant of Christ's Vicar on earth and holds its charter from him, to compare it, in any way to an unlawful association like Freemasonry which has no charter from either Church or State, and is in fact an unnatural and spurious progeny. In other ways too, the comparison is inappropriate. The Society of Jesus never had much more than some 20,000 members while Freemasonry numbers it members by the million.

[2] Regarding the assertion that Jesuits are a secret society see above, p 181 The "thousands of affiliates to Jesuitism" meaning apparently some type of secret "Third Order" of Jesuits living as orginary laymen are purely mythical. No such body ever existed. The supposed "Jesuit oaths" are now recognised bv all Catholic or otherwise, to be mere clumsy forgeries (Fr. Bridgett, Blunders and Forgeries), and it is absurd to compare them with the Masonic oaths, the terms of which are actually contained in the official Masonic handbook.

[3] The suggestions contained here, at least as regards the relations of the Society of Jesus with the Holy See, is the very reverse of the truth. The devotedness of the Society of Jesus to the Holy See has never been questioned by any serious historian—and least of all by the Popes themselves. No less than 27 Popes have approved and confirmed the institute of the Society (most of whom have besides praised its work in the most unstinted terms) and not one has condemned it. The temporary suppression of the Society (1772-1814) was a purely disciplinary measure. The Pope found himself compelled, in order to avoid greater evils menacing the universal Church to bend before the storm raised all over Europe and America by the Masonic and other anti-Christian forces. Hence while studiously refraining from any word of condemnation against the institute of the Society of Jesus he affixed his signature to the Brief of the Suppression, which, as is now known, was drafted by the Spanish ambassador under Masonic guidance. Within a single generation every one of the thrones which had been active in the suppression had fallen a victim to the revolutionary movement of which this Masonic and anti-Christian combine was the driving force, and the Society of Jesus the first victim (cf. Barrud, op . cit* t vol. i; Cath . Encyclop ,, vol. xiv, p. 96).

[4] This, too, is a misstatement. St. Ignatius was never brought before the Inquisition after he became General of the Society of Jesus. In the first years after his conversion, St. Ignatius, full of apostolic zeal, undertook, while still a layman, to direct others in the Spiritual Exercises. The Ecclesiastical authorities anxious and fearful, owing to the spirit of heresy that was then abroad, forbade him to do so till after his ordination; but they found no fault with his doctrine. Later on in Rome, before the formal approbation of the Institute of the Society by the Holy See, St. Ignatius again got into difficulties. Complaints were raised by some well-meaning persons against the newness of his methods. The complaints were inspired by the prevailing fear of heretical innovation. The case was examined before the Inquisition; and St. Ignatius triumphantly acquitted.

[5] The words here quoted rather inaccurately are apparently taken from or at least suggested by a passage in a constitution of Benedict XIV issued (1742) to put an end to the complicated dispute concerning the Chinese rites, which had gone on for over a century (cf. MacCaffrey, History of the Catholic Church from the Renaissance , etc., vol. i, pp, 264-266). The decisions of the Holy See on the matter were in every case accepted with unquestioning obedience by the head Superiors of the Society, who urged their subjects in distant China to obey them promptly and fully. Some of the Jesuit missionaries in China, however [as well as others not belonging to the Society), feared that disastrous results would follow for the missions if the condemnation of the Chinese rites were strictly enforccd and protested too strongly against it. In the Constitution these missionaries are rebuked severly by the Pope. There was no question even in their case of formal disobedience much less of any charge against the Society as a whole, which was, in fact again and again praised and endowed with the greatest privileges by this very Pope—Benedict XIV.

[8] This Statement is fully dealt with in the author's letter of reply. [9] Father Lainez, so well known to students of Ecclesiastical history in connection with the Council of Trent, died in 1565, nearly two centuries before he drew up, as here asserted, the Constitution of the CLermont Chapter!!

[10] This whole account in as far as it implies any connection of the Society of Jesus with Freemasonry, or any opposition between the former and the Holy See is purely mythical. The implication that the Popes in the eighteenth century aimed at a world-wide extension of their temporal sovereignity and tried to utilise Freemasonry for the purpose, is manifestly false and indeed fantastic.

The connection alleged between the Masonic Order known as the "Clermont Chapter" and the Jesuit College of Clermont illustrates very aptly the recklessness and uncritical character of the statements of Masonic apologists in dealing with their opponents. Here are the facts of the case:—

The oldest and most celebrated of the Jesuit Colleges in France was the College de Clermont in Paris. Its first foundation dates from 1550. when the Mgr. du Prat, Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, handed over his Paris residence, then known as the "Hotel de Clermont" to the Fathers of the Society of Jesus for a college residence. This was the origin of the name, Clermont, by which the college was always known, even after its transference from the Hotel de Clermont to a different part of the city. The college never had any connection with the town of Clermont, which was some 150 miles away.

Two centuries after the foundation of the college of Clermont, a certain Prince of the Bourbon family, the Comte de Clermont, who took his title from the town of Clermont, became Grand Master of the Masonic Order in France. He held this office for nearly thirty years (1743-1771), during which several of the so-called Higher degrees of Freemasonry were founded. Of these latter, one founded in 1754, was named "The Clermont Chapter" manifestly borrowing its name from the title of the Masonic Grand Master, who in fact became its head.

The bare fact of the name, Clermont, being associated both with the Masonic Chapter and the Jesuit College is the whole foundation of the story which Col. Cane here details as serious history. Upon this basis he, or the Masonic authorities upon whom he relies, have built up in defiance of history, chronology and geography, the whole fantastic legend, of the Jesuits having founded a Masonic Order whose constitutions were drawn up by a General of the Society, whose death had actually taken place two centuries before!

It will interest the Catholic reader to know that Jesuits are not the only victims of these absurd and calumnious Masonic accusations. It has been seriously asserted in Masonic publications that Pope Benedict XIV and Pius IX were both initiated into Freemasonry—the former even during his Pontificate!!

[11] The question of the connection of the Illuminati with Freemasonry has been already dealt with.

[12] The epithet "Roman Catholic" as applied to the Masonic Order of the "Strict Observance" is incorrect and misleading. It may be true that that order originally recruited its members from among Catholics who misunderstood its character or were false to their religion. Freemasonry was always anti-Catholic and was condemned by Clement XII long before the foundation of this Degree of Masonry, which in fact was aggressively anti-Christian.

--------------- END RESPONSE -------------------

There are several versions of Jesuit oaths which have been published by hostile writers, and they are, if true far more objectionable than anything alleged to be Masonic. [2]

I say, "if true" because I must repeat it, I do not, like Father Cahill, take for granted the truth of all that is alleged by avowed enemies and renegades. Such statements are polluted at the source and at least liable to very grave suspicion.

The Jesuit Order.

From the date of its foundation in 1530 by Ignatius Loyola, the Jesuit Order seems to have encountered opposition not only from the Civil Governments of every country where they established themselves, but from the Roman Pontiffs themselves.[3] So far did this opposition go that their General was arrested and tried by the Holy Inquisition and although he was ultimately acquitted, did not escape censure. [4] In 1741, Benedict XIV characterised the Jesuits as "disobedient, contumacious, captious and reprobate persons." [5] In 1759 they were expelled from Portugal, in 1764 suppressed in France, and expelled in 1767; and finally, in 1773, they were suppressed in Rome itself by Clement XIV in the famous Brief "Dominus ac Redemptor."

At this time no foothold was left for them in any of the Latin or Roman Catholic countries, except the small Kingdom of Sardinia, so they took refuge in Prussia and Russia, where they were granted asylum by Frederick the Great and Catherine II, two non-Roman Catholic sovereigns. The Society did not dissolve itself in obedience to the Papal Mandate, pleading in excuse that no Papal Bull is binding in a State whose Sovereign has not approved and authorized its publication and execution. If this principle held good with regard to the Jesuits in Prussia and Russia in 1773, surely it held, and still holds good, with regard to the Freemasons in the British Isle?

So far I have only considered some points of similarity in the history of the two. I propose to show that the connection between the Jesuits and Continental Freemasonry was far more intimate. [6]

We must first remember that although all modern Freemasonry had its origen in these islands, and the first French Lodge was chartered from England, almost from the very beginning Continental Masonry diverged from the original simplicity of practice and principle it should have inherited from its parent.

Literally, hundreds of new "Degrees" and scores of new "Rites" were formed, new ones every year, each trying to outbid its predecessor in magnificence of ritual and high-sounding titles and decorations with which it invested its members. Most of these Orders had no real connection with true Masonry at all, though many were founded by men who had obtained the original degrees in a legitimate way. They never got any serious footing in England or Ireland, nor I think in Scotland, though the name "Ecossais" or "Scottish" was used very freely in connection with many of them, probably due to the influence of the Chevalier Ramsay and the young Pretender, Charles Edward Stuart. We at home considered them unauthorised and spurious, and the few of them which still survive to this day are not recognised as pure and Ancient Freemasonry by the Sister Grand Lodges of England, Ireland, and Scotland.

It is these Orders and Degrees which are mainly dealt with in the various publications quoted by Father Cahill and it was they who, quite justly in many cases, incurred the Papal Condemnations. [8] Among these spurious Orders was one which became notorious, the Chapter of Clermont. It came nominally into existence in Paris in the year 1753) ?>or 1754 and Louis de Bourbon, Comte de Clermont, who was then Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France, became its nominal head.

But according to most authorities it had already existed since 1735, or soon after, in the College of Clermont under the auspices of the Jesuits, and Louis was only installed as its head to mask its origin. It was convenient that not only should his name, but his Masonic rank fit in so aptly.

In its original form the candidate was not received in a "Lodge," but in the city of Jerusalem; a clerical Jerusalem signifying Rome, and the meetings were called Capitula Canonicorum. The statutes were drawn up by Lainez, the second General of the Jesuits. [9]

From the Chapter of Clermont sprang the Order of "The Strict Observance" which aimed at superseding all the existing forms of Masonry, and very nearly succeeded in doing so. It was controlled wholly by Jesuit influence, and no one could be initiated into one of its Lodges unless he was a member of the Church of Rome. Its founder, Baron von Hunde, was originally a Protestant, but changed his religion in order to be eligible.

The Relaxed Observance.

"The Relaxed Observance" which was a schismatic body from "The Strict Observance," was equally exclusive in religious qualifications. These bodies aimed not only at universal domination over Masonry, but at a universal monarchy under Roman control. It was not until the Congress of Wilhdmsbad, held in 1782 under the presidency of the Duke of Brunswick (this Congress was mainly occupied in discussing the influence of Jesuitism in Masonry), that these two systems lost their influence, and finally died a natural death. Neither of them ever obtained any recognition in England or Ireland. [10]

A few words about the sect of the Illuminati seem necessary since Father Cahill asserts their connection with Masonry. [11] Illuminism was founded by Adam Weishaupt, who had been educated by the Jesuits, but had incurred their displeasure when he was appointed Professor of Canon Law in the University of Ingoldstadt, a post previously held invariably by a member of their Order. He was initiated in 1776 in a Lodge of the Roman Catholic [12] "Strict Observance," and in the same year launched his new Order of Illuminati, which he tried to graft on to one or other of the existing Masonic systems. In this however, he was entirely unsuccessful, and after eight years of precarious existence it was suppressed by the Elector of Bavaria. Its connection with Masonry of any sort is of the very slightest, probably not more than with Jesuitism, and Weishaupt seems to have been an unprincipled scoundrel.

Roman, if not Jesuitical influence, was paramount in several of the other Degrees of this period. The Degrees of "Knight of the Sun", "Illuminati of Avignon" and the "Hermetic Degrees" all owe their origin to Pernetti, a Benedictine monk. [13]

During most of this period, when the Jesuits were trying to gain control of the Masonic Order, it must not be forgotten that they were under a cloud and in serious difficulties, not only with the various Governments of Europe, but with Rome itself, even before their suppression in 1773.

Had they succeeded they would probably have been strong enough to defy the Papal authority. That they were defeated was mainly owing to the steadfastness of British Freemasonry and the efforts of the rulers of the Northern Protestant States, especially Frederick the Great of Prussia.

[13] Antoine Joseph Perncty, as the name is usually spelled (1716-1801), a French Benedictine, left his monastery (1716). apparently without obtaining a dispensation from his vows, being wearied of the restraints of the religious life, and lived for some time in the court of Frederick the Great of Prussia, who made him his librarian. After leaving his monastery he wrote several works on a variety of subjects, some being of an occultist character. Some say that he abandoned the Christian faith and became the founder of some of the Occultist rites of Freemasonry. But the accounts are obscure and confused. Cf, Diction air c Historiquc , par Abb£ de Feller, vol. x, p. 212 (Paris, 1825); also Waite, op. cit vol. ii, pp. 274-5) ?>and passim.

[14] The implication that the Holy See ever was or ever could be in danger from the Society of Jesus (which depended and still depends on the favour of the Holy See for its very existence), or that it was saved from Jesuit domination by English Freemasonry and the Protestant powers of Northern Europe, illustrates the perverted ideas of history which Masonic writers propagate and many of their followers sincerely believe.

Colonel Cane's case in those rather incoherent paragraphs seems to be that the Jesuits tried to gain control of the Continental section of Freemasonry: that had they succeeded in doing so they would have been able to realise some kind of world-domination and defy the Holy See, and that their attempt was defeated only by English Freemasonry and the Masonic rulers of the Protestant nations of Northern Europe. Apparently the Jesuits' attempt met its Waterloo at the Masonic Congress of Willielmsbad, which, by the way, was held in 1782, nine years after the suppression of the Society of Jesus. The whole story is too fantastic to need further refutation. So, perhaps, one cannot wonder if they still feel some resentment, but still it makes one wonder that a Society so open to criticism, and with so many vulnerable points, should identify itself so prominently with an attack on an organisation which, like itself, has withstood for centuries the attacks of so many enemies, even those of the Holy See.

Claude Cane.


Nov. 25. To the Editor Irish Independent.

Sir,—Col. Cane on Saturday treated Irish Independent readers to quite a lengthy letter in which he gave the results —such as they are—of his researches into the history of the Jesuits. Admitting—for the sake of argument only—that all Col. Cane says about the Jesuits is true, how does that better the case of the Freemasons? An old saw lays down that "two blacks do not make one white."

Whatever the emptying of the contents of Col. Cane's inkpot may do to make the Jesuits black it cannot have the effect of making the Freemasons a whit whiter. If, instead of the lengthy epistle about the Jesuits, Col. Cane had given even ten lines about the necessity of the Freemason oath and of Freemason secrecy, to justify in the eyes of sensible people either or both, he would have done something more effective than he has done in trying to drag the Jesuit red-herring across the scent.

Editor Irish Catholic.


To the Editor Irish Independent,

Sir,—It is interesting to hear from Col. Cane that Freemasonry in Ireland is not anti-Christian—he did not say not anti-Catholic—and that it repudiates Continental Freemasonry. The result of his investigations into the history of the Society of Jesus is also interesting as far as it goes, but since Freemasony has come so much into the limelight lately what the "man in the street" would like to know is; What is Freemasonry? What does it exist for?

The Popular Belief.

The popular belief is that when Freemasons foregather in their lodges they do so not only to devise ways and means of furthering their own interest but of crushing their commercial and political rivals. Let me give a couple of instances of what I mean.

(a) It is popularly believed that a Freemason bank manager is expected, if not obliged, to strain every point compatible with the retention of his employment in the matter of accommodation and leniency towards a Freemason customer while at the same time enforcing the letter of the law and putting on the screw with non-Freemason customers, whether they be Catholic or Protestant, more particularly if they should be commercial rivals of the Freemason customers.

(b) While Freemasons arc usually to all appearance good citizens of the State there is a belief—for which we in Ireland have good reason—that they consider their Freemason oath more binding than their allegiance to the State or to their King.

If only these two points have any foundation in fact, I submit that Freemasonry in Ireland is a danger to the community and to the State, that it has been very properly condemned by the Holy See, and deserves the condemnation of all right-thinking men, no matter to what class, creed, or nation they belong.

Diarmuidh Ua Briain.


Nov. 25.

D. C. writes "Col. Cane tells us of a Chapter of Clermont which came into existence about 1735. He says: "Its statutes were drawn up by Lainez, second General of the Jesuits." But Father Lainez died in 1565. Evidently he could not have drawn up the statutes for a body which began in 1735."

Nov. 26.

To the Editor Irish Independent.

Sir,—My authority for saying that the statutes of the Chapter of Clermont were the work of Lainez is Charles Heckethom's "Secret Societies of All Ages and Countries," a work which is usually accepted as reliable. His exact words are: "Catholic ceremonies, unknown in ancient Freemasonry, were introduced from 1735 to 1740 in the Chapter of Clermont, . . . In the statutes is seen the hand of James Lainez, the second General of the Jesuits."

This probably means that statutes which had been in existence for many years in a Jesuit Society were introduced into a quasi-Masonic body in 1735 or 1740.[15]

Why does the Editor of the Irish Catholic continually complain of the space I occupy in your columns? Surely, sir, that is a matter for yourself alone. When I ask for space in his columns it will be another matter.

Claude Cane.

Alen's Grove, Celbridge.

[15] Jesuits have no ceremonies or ritual except the ordinary ceremonies and ritual of the Catholic Church with which all the faithful are familiar. It is incredible that the constitutions or statutes of the Society of Jesus approved and praised by some twenty-seven Popes could have been the prototype of the constitutions of a Masonic Order, so strongly condemned and reprobated by nearly all the Popes of the past two centuries.

Nov. 27.



To the Editor Irish Independent.

Sir—Let me tell CoL Cane that I do not "complain" of the length of his epistles; what I do advert to and emphasize is that for all their length, he tells nothing in his letters about what we really want and ask him to enlighten us upon—(1) Why there is a Freemason oath at all? (2) why the secrecy of Freemasonry is a sworn secrecy? (3) why in its religious test for admission to membership Freemasonry requires belief in God but ignores Christ? Not a single solitary line has come from Col. Canes pen to throw the faintest light on even one of these vital questions—the questions that really matter.

Until he has cleared these questions up, Col. Cane's historical excursions about the Jesuits, etc, are simply bypaths from the main road—bypaths he would fain have us follow to get lost in a jungle of profitless discussions covering over the original and primary issues. Antiquated as is the ruse. Col. Cane must have expected it to work successfully; hence his evident annoyance at its repeated exposure.

Editor Irish Catholic.


Nov. 28.

To the Editor Irish Independent.

Sir,—On November 11 I wrote to your paper in reply to a letter from Col. Claude Cane, which was published in the Belfast Telegraph and the Irish Independent some days previously. In that letter the Colonel made very serious charges not only against the author of the recently-published book, Freemasonry and the Anti-Christian Movement, but against all the non-Masonic writers whom the author quotes.

Of the latter he says that "they drew on their imaginations for their so-called facts," and the former he describes as a fanatic, "who sees only what he wishes to see and believes only what he wishes to believe." Of the book itself he says that he "can scarcely find one word of truth in it from cover to cover."

In my letter I dealt with these charges more or less fully, and pointed out how utterly reckless and groundless they were. That letter has so far been left unanswered.

According to all the rules of decent controversy, the Colonel was bound either to substantiate his charges or withdraw them, all the more so as they contain very serious imputations against the honour of many distinguished scholars that are still living, and include in their scope practically all the Popes that have occupied the Chair of St. Peter for the past two centuries.

Instead of withdrawing or trying to substantiate his injurious statements in the Press where they were made, the Colonel invited me to retire with him from the public arena which he himself had originally chosen, and discuss the whole matter in a friendly and apparently private conference. This invitation I found it impossible to accept, both for the reason I have just suggested and also because the Colonel has refused to give an answer on the very relevant and essential matter of his Masonic oaths, though such an answer might be given in less than half a dozen words.

The Masonic Oaths.

A discussion on Freemasonry with a member of the Masonic body bound by such oaths as the ones upon which the Colonel had been challenged could serve no useful purpose. One who has again and again solemnly sworn, and that, too, under such penalties as torture, death, and mutilation to conceal and hide the real secrets and inner nature of Freemasonry, even from the heads of the Church and the State, even from the judge sitting on the bench, could not be expected to reveal anything of importance.

Much less could I hope to learn with certainty anything to the prejudice of the Order, no matter how essential, from a member who is bound by similar oaths and under like penalties to obey any order of Masonic superiors, no matter what that order may be. For, whatever may be said or thought of Jesuit oaths, the Masonic oaths at least are not a myth. The texts of these oaths are to be found in recognised Masonic treatises and in the official Masonic rituals and manuals, some of which now lie before me as I write.

I refrained from replying to the Colonel's invitation, hoping that my silence would bring to an end a futile newspaper battle; for I accepted his repeated assurances thftt he was averse to public controversy. My hopes, however, have been disappointed. On Novi 23 another long letter from the Colonel was published in the Belfast Telegraph, and two days later appears in the Irish Independent. In this latest letter the Colonel makes no attempt either to substantiate or withdraw his injurious statements. He completely ignores my letter of Nov. 8 and still preserves the same significant silence on the fundamental question of the Masonic oaths.

Jesuit Question Irrelevant.

His letter, which consists almost entirely of an attack on the Society of Jesus, is irrelevant to the present controversy, which he evidently wishes to sidetrack. Summaries of the innumerable charges, which have been made by the enemies of the Church against the Society of Jesus during the past three and a half centuries, may be found in most of the ordinary encyclopedias, and are a portion of the usual stock-in-trade of the Church's traducers.

The curious reader, who would consult the older editions of the English encyclopedias, will find charges against the Society even more startling than any the Colonel ventures to put forward. All these charges have been answered and refuted dozens of times. In any case they do not concern us here. A discussion on that subject may come later, should the Colonel so desire and should you, sir, think well to open your columns to it.

Even in such case, may I submit in passing, that the "student of history" who undertakes to weigh in the balance the merits and demerits of the Society of Jesus should have the needed qualification for the task, and should possess some knowledge, at least of the broad outlines of his subject. That the Colonel lacks such qualification is, I think, quite evident from his letter.

The subject of our present controversy, however, is not the Society of Jesus; its merits or demerits, its phantom crowds of affiliates; its supposed crimes or mythical oaths. We have now to do solely with Freemasonry and the content of my book of which the Colonel has asserted that he "can scarcely find one word of truth in it from cover to cover."

The indictment against Freemasonry, which it contains, is not made upon the authority of Jesuit writers or the assertions of the enemies of Freemasonry, but upon the express testimony of Masonic official writings and of some of the best and most widely recognised Masonic authors. Let us, therefore, keep to the point, and avoid extraneous issues.

British Freemasonry Falls under Indictment.

Of the Colonel's original misstatements there is one, which, although briefly dealt with in my former letter, I think useful to touch upon again, especially as Col. Cane now repeats it in another form. The point which he strives to make (we pass over the details of Masonic erudition with which he envelops it) is that Continental or Latin Freemasonry is one thing, and Anglo-Saxon (including Irish and American) is quite another; and that the testimony of the writers, whom I quote, including the Papal condemnations, apply only to the former, and do not at all affect Freemasonry as it exists in the English-speaking countries. That the very contrary of all this is the case will be clear to anyone reading my book even cursorily.

The testimony of the Masonic authors, whom I quote, refers mainly to Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry. What the Colonel states as to the limited scope of the Papal condemnations is expressly excluded by the very text of the condemnations themselves, and in any case is manifestly untenable.

So-called Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry contains considerably more than thirteen-fourteenths of the whole Masonic body (4,100,000 out of a total 4,400,000) and includes, besides, most of the 1,000,000 or so of unrecognised Negro Masons in U.S.A., "which indicates that Freemasonry is, essentially, an Anglo-Saxon institution".

Does the Colonel seriously assert when eleven Popes, one after another, during nearly two centuries, stigmatise in such unconditional and sweeping terms the whole institution and system of Freemasonry, that they meant their words to apply only to one very small section of it, which is, in fact, less than one-fourteenth of the whole, and which he himself has repeatedly said is, in reality, not Freemasonry at ail but only a spurious and accidental by-product?

Oneness of all Freemasonry,

That Freemasonry forms one body the whole world over is, in fact, officially recognised by the Freemasons themselves. All sections, both Continental and Anglo-Saxon, are equally enumerated in the official Masonic Year-books. Irish, English and American Freemasons supply the official lists of their members and lodges for publication in Continental Calendars. They send their representatives to the international Masonic congresses.

Thus, in my book I give an account of the International Brussels Congress, 1907, of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite (of whose Supreme Council, 33rd degree, for Ireland, the Colonel himself is General Secretary and Treasurer), at which Ireland, France, Italy, Portugal, etc., etc., were represented. Similarly, at the recent Congress of the International Masonic League at Amsterdam, England was represented as well as the U.S.A., France, Germany, etc., etc. (ci. Osservatore Romano, 30th Oct., 1929). Here in Ireland we find official representatives of the Grand Orients of Portugal, Italy, Spain, and of the Grand Lodges of France, Belgium, Mexico, Brazil, etc., etc.

When the English Masonic journals protested in 1885, as Col. Cane now protests, against British Freemasonry being held responsible for the activities and opinions of the openly anti-religious and revolutionary sections of Freemasonry, their own great prophet and leader, Bro. Albert Pike, admitted that the protest was futile: "It is idle for you to protest. You are Freemasons and you recognise them as Freemasons. You give them countenance, encouragement and support, and you are jointly responsible with them and cannot shirk the responsibility."

Author's Attitude and Motives.

Before concluding I ask Col. Cane to accept my assurance that I bear no enmity to him or to any individual Freemason. I am fully aware, as I repeat more than once in my book, that multitudes of Freemasons, sometimes holding, apparently, high office in the Order, do not know or do not realise the inherent wickedness of the institution to which, alas, they lend their support.

I have written my book as a Catholic priest in defence, as far as my small ability may serve, of our Catholic people against the perils of an institution, which I know to be the aggressive and deadly enemy of all that they and I hold most dear; I have written, too, in pursuance of the Pope's exhortation to the Catholic priesthood, " to tear away the mask from Freemasonry and let it be seen as it really is."

With the same purpose in view I replied to Col. Cane's original attack, in my letter of Nov. 8, which reply I now further supplement. Until the Colonel meets that reply squarely; until he withdraws or substantiates the injurious charges he has made with the "sanction and approval" of the official heads of the Masonic Order in Ireland; until he gives a satisfactory explanation of his Masonic oaths neither he nor any other representative of the Masonic Order in Ireland has, 1 submit, any claim to be further heard in the present controversy. Hence I appeal to you, Sir, to see that the ordinary rules of debate be observed, and that the Colonel, should he select to go on with the controversy, be not further allowed to shirk or sidetrack the issue.

Edward Cahill, S.J. Milltown Park, Dublin.

Col. Cane did not reply to the above.


Dec. 2. To the Editor Irish Independent.

Sir,—Allow something to be said by one who, from inquiries made, could not, as a Christian, join the Freemasons. Many years ago a conversation on the subject took place with a Mason in Dublin. A little before this a publication had been made respecting Freemasonry, by Rev. John Alex, Dowie. Because of what was stated therein, the Mason was asked: "is a Mason in the Lodge perfectly free to mention or use the name of Jesus Christ, or is he in any wise prohibited from doing so."

Very significantly, avoiding a direct answer, he said: "In the Order of the Templars you are allowed to do so, and even required to be a Christian." That harmonised, as far as it went, with the Kev. Mr. Dowie's publication, as it does also with Col. Cane's rejoinder. But, as we shall see, it omitted what is perhaps more serious from the Christian stand-poinl than anything that has yet been brought to light in this controversy.

Masonic Ritual and the Holy Name.

Men who were not "renegades" from Masonry, but who were witnessing on a religious platform with Mr. Howie that they left the Masonry from Christian and conscientious motives, were there testifying also as to what takes place in the ritual of the fundamental degrees of the Masons. The following are taken as two of the examples given:—

"Under the charge at opening the lodge of the degree of Royal Arch, this portion of the Scripture is read," omitting, however, the words: "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." Now we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly."

Also from the following Scripture these words, "in the Lord Jesus Christ," are also omitted:—" Now them that are such we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ that with quietness they work and eat their own bread."

Thus they cut out from the middle of the passages, in the one case, the words "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," and in the other the words "in the Lord Jesus Christ."

Why Struck Out?

Why are these words struck out? There must be some reason for it; and obviously the only reason is because they refer to the Lord Jesus Christ. Col. Cane himself, one may safely say, would not deny that fact; while everyone knows that the name Jesus Christ is, at least, not agreeable to Jews, Turks, etc., who, as such, are eligible candidates.

Surely to delete or omit words from Scripture (the Word of God) because they refer to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is not honouring but, in a very marked manner, dishonouring the Son. And what can be more serious, seeing that it is written: "He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which sent Him," and "whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven."

But we should conclude, even from Col. Cane's rejoinder that it is contrary to Christianity to admit, as he does, that an association can honour Jesus Christ in one of its higher degrees—that of the Templars—and not do so in others.

Col. Cane admits this, saying, very significantly, that "in the higher degrees" a member must be a professing Christian, but, in others, that he must avow his belief in God, the contradistinction meaning, of course, that, in the others, belief in God only is required, and not in Jesus Christ also! That in itself sufficiently and obviously accounts for the deletion in question, and the consequent dishonouring of Jesus Christ in the ritual referred to. Now no man can so learn Christ.

Inconsistent Action of Protestant Clergymen.

Does it not seem strange that clergymen professing to be Christians (and among them is, at least, one whom the writer sincerely and deeply loves) can conscientiously be members of such an association, knowing what dishonouring the Soul of God means, knowing that "whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father."

Therefore, it should be emphasised that, without doubt, a ritual which is drawn up with the name of Jesus Christ purposely deleted, so as to suit those who deny Him, is not for Him, but is very plainly against Him. That fact no one can deny.

If swearing is obligatory in Masonry, it is, in that respect, contradictory also to the Christian teaching of "the Sermon upon the Mount" and elsewhere. Cannot amendments be made so as not to conflict with Christianity? 'No good can come to it thereby.

J. Moore, Tramore.

Dec. 2. To the Editor Irish Independent.

Sir,—Why do Masonic apologists endeavour to convey the idea that Freemasons uphold Christianity when Jews and Unitarians, who reject Christ, and members of Eastern sects who reject Christ or have never heard of Him, can become members of their body?

Some of the most influential Masonic Lodges in London are composed principally of Jews, and there is a large Jewish membership in lodges in Dublin.

Ulllliam Ua Cheannfhaolaidh. Dublin.