rom the "Voice of Masonry" we this month again select interesting matter gathered from official reports: nothing seems to come amiss to our American brethren in the way of moralizing on the different aspects of a problem either social or religious. It is very amusing to mark the wide difference of opinion in these official utterances on similar questions. It is evident when this occurs someone must be wrong, but who is it?

Gurney's Reports, 1884.

"Masonic correspondence has become a great feature of the Masonic Institution, and he who does not carefully read and study the respective annual reports fails to acquire inestimably valuable Masonic information, and deprives himself of inexpressible pleasure. Drummond, of Maine; Simons, of New York; Gurney, of Iliinois; Parvin, of Iowa; Pierson, of Minnesota; Hedges, of Montana; Vincil, of Missouri; Meed, of Washington; Staton, of Kentucky; Wheeler, of Connecticut; Wait, of New Hampshire; Singleton, of the District of Columbia; Vaux, of Pennsylvania; Hammond, of Nevada; Inglesby, of South Carolina; Richards, of Ohio; Chadwick, of Oregon; Innes, of Michigan, and others are great lights in this service of the Fraternity, and merit high commendation. Probably Simons is the most conservative and Gurney the most sensational. Anyway they thus appear to us. The latter dearly loves to find a topic to thrust through and through, but none is truer to what he conceives to be strictly Masonic, nor more zealous in upholding and defending the Ancient Craft banner. His reports of 1884 are very important and are eliciting unusual attention and criticism. His special report to the Grand Lodge of Illinois on the Memphis and the Ancient and Primitive Rite appeared in this magazine last month, and hence now is passed by. His regular report to the Grand Lodge is most important and will first receive review.

"Report To Grand Lodge:—Heretofore Bro. Gurney has mercilessly condemned the unanimity theory of forming Grand Lodges, and he still dissents to it, yet nevertheless in the opening of the report now under review he unwittingly demonstrates its correctness and proves that it is 'the accepted law of organization.'"

* * *

"Minority Theory.—Bro. Gurney finds no reason for endorsing the minority theory, and with his trenchant pen he cuts it all to pieces. Under the caption 'Grand Lodge of Victoria,' he says: 'In 1863 and 1876 unsuccessful attempts were made to organize a Grand Lodge. April 13th, 1883, a preliminary meeting of brethren, not lodges, was held in Melbourne to once more inaugurate the undertaking, and, so far as the common law of organization dictates, with a like want of success attending previous efforts. On the 19th day of June the convention was held, fifteen lodges being represented. There were also present bodies of Masons from two other lodges, who were as would appear, in sympathy with the movement. At this point we find, upon page 27 of "proceedings," that "Masonry has been established here some forty years, and, according to recent returns, the lodges under the three constitutions (English, Irish and Scotch) number ninety-five, with probably five thousand members." The facts are, therefore, that fifteen lodges, with about eight hundred members, assume to dictate an organization for the whole Fraternty of the Colony. Our brethren of Victoria rest their claims to legality upon the declaration of our late Bro. Mackey, that three lodges are authorized to consummate the organization This is true if such lodges constitue a majority of the lodges of a defined territory. This is what that distinguished author says: (Vide Mackey's Jurisprudence, pp. 423 and 42.) "The fact is, that there is no ancient regulation on the subject; but the necessity of thee lodges concurring is derived from the well known principles of the civil law, that a college or corporate body must consist of three persons at least. Two lodges could not unite in a Masonic college or corporate body, nor form that corporate body known as a Grand Lodge. But not more than three are necessary, and accordingly the Grand Lodge of Texas, which was established in 1837, by three lodges, was at once recognized as regular and legal by all the Grand Lodges of the United States and other countries.* * * The Grand Lodge thus formed, by the union of not less than three lodges in convention, at once assumes all the prerogatives of a Grand Lodge, and acquires exclusive Masonic jurisdiction over the territory within whose geographical limits it has been constituted. No lodge can continue to exist, or be subsequently established in the territory, except under its authority; and all other Grand Lodges are prohibited from exercising any Masonic authority within the said territory.'

"'We give both quotations to show that the presumption cannot be entertained that he intended to insist that a minority of lodges, fifteen, could formulate an organization for ninety-five; becanse not in all the annals of the Institution has it ever been recognized that a minority of lodges or Grand Lodge, could determine legislation for the majority. If Bro. Mackey had been of the opinion that three lodges could have controlled, notwithstanding the presence of twenty others in Texas, he would have so said; but the facts are, that the three lodges who instituted that Grand Body were a majority of the lodges of that particular domain, and if memory is not at fault, they constituted the entire Fraternity of the jurisdiction.'"

Vincil's Report, 1884.

Justly, we think, Right Worshipful and Rev. John D. Vincil, of Missouri, may be classed as one of the ablest, most vigorous, most positive, and most zealous of the reporters on Masonic correspondence. Sometimes he errs in his judgment of what is Masonic, but ever firmly upholds what he believe is right. His report for 1884, to the Grand Lodge, fills two hundred and six pages; and, in his opinion, is not the best he has prepared. He expresses disappointment with it. We do not view it as he does. He hopes to be comforted with the verdict, "It might have been worse." We think it could not easily be improved in thought or in sentiment, and have it remain Vincilian. of course it is not Drummondian, Parvinian, Piersonian, Innesian, Singletonian, nor Wheelerian, and not best from those standpoints, nor by those standards is it to be judged." * * *

* * *

"A Man in Rome.—Alluding to an oration of a certain Grand Orator, Bro. Vincil says: 'The chief staple of the brief address was an answer to a man who lives "in Rome, and who does as Rome does." The aforesaid man is said to dislike Freemasonry. Very likely. There are many others of the same class elsewhere. We see no reason for alarm or making ourselves unhappy because of such dislike. We have not heard of the death of any lodges or downfall of the Institution of Freemasonry since the man of Rome has been delivered of his Bull. Nor do we expect any increase of the integrity and stability of Freemasonry in consequence of any defence made by Grand Orators. We could not listen, with patience, to a dissertation upon the statement that "the sun shines."' Free-masonry is a grand institution and very solid, but its light and beneficence are not as apparent as the sun at 'meridian height.' Many people are wrongly prejudiced against it, among them Leo, Pope XIII., but not all are so intelligent as he. Some need light, others more light, and what are Grand Orators for if not to impart it? We remember well the first time we ever saw Bro. Vincil was while he was out on an oratorical expedition. What he said then was not knew to some of his hearers; but to others it was an intellectual feast. So the orator whom Bro. Vincil criticises gave needed intellectual food to most of his hearers. We read the oration with real interest, and naught but the lack of space for it prevented us from reprinting it."

* * *

As we said before, nothing comes amiss to the Masonic reportist. Here is a choice bit of theological dogma discussed with true American vivacty. What would be said of one of our District Grand Secretaries who should attempt to entertain his Lodge in similar manner?

The Resurrection.

Bro. Richards, of Ohio, while reviewing a report of Bro. Howry, of Missisippi, said, "We confess to some surprise on reading in his preface the following as a part of his creed: 'We believe in God, the resurrection of the body, and the immortality of the soul.' The resurrection of this frail, worm-eaten body, after it has lain for years—nay, centuries—until the last remnant of flesh, bone and sinew, has mingled with its kindred dist? Incredible! Possibly we do not understand such things; but we give the plain English of it, and that is the best we can offer. Bro. Vincil answers his objection thus: "We confess to some surprise on reading the 'surprise' of Bro. Richards over the part of the creed quoted from the report of the venerated and erudite Howry. Bro. Richards writes as though the doctrine of the 'resurrection of the body' was 'some new thing' he had just met with. He reminds us of the 'philosophers' at Athens, when the great scholar and thinker of that age proclaimed the doctrine Bro. Howry inserted in his creed. The surprise' of Bro. Richards and the Athenian philosophers belongs to the same family. They 'mocked' and he cries 'incredible!' And we think if he had said 'impossible' it would have expressed no more than he felt and believed. The other language used is equivalent to impossible. He evidently discards and scouts the 'resurrection of this tail, worm-eaten body, after it has lain for years—nay, centuries—until the last remnant of page 342 flesh, bone find sinew, has mingled with its kindred dust.' 'Incredible.' We express no 'surprise' that the philosophers of Athens 'mocked' when they heard, for the first time, the doctrine of Bro. Howry's creed. But we must express some little 'surprise' that a good Mason like Bro. Richards should expunge the doctrine of the 'resurrection of the body' from the Masonic 'creed.' We think he believes a physical 'resurrection' impossible. It must be so or he would not say 'incredible.' He judges the docrine in the light, and by the laws of nature. His postulate is the one common through the ages—'Resurrection is a miracle.' 'Miracle is contrary to the laws of nature.' 'Therefore resurrection is impossible'—'incredible.' Is there no God in your creed, Bro. Richards? Do you ackowledge the God of the Bible? Then, we ask, 'Why should it be thought a thing 'incredible' with you that God should raise the dead?' The God of Nature must be above and superior to the laws He gave to nature, or else he is subordinate to His own works. Will you so affirm? Then the laws of nature are not in the way of God when He would perform a miracle, admitting that 'the resurrection of the body' is a miracle, per se. Is there nothing prophetic to Bro. Richards in the struggle going on between the life-principle and the death tendency in the universe? In the huge grapple between the law of life and the law of decay; does he hear no 'speaking voice' or 'bathkol,' prophesying of the ultimate triumph of the vital force, called life, over decay? Does not life, springing out of death, everywhere in nature, tell him, there must be a time when the mightier force shall prevail, and nature under the direction of the Lion of the tribe of Judah—creation's Head—wheel into line and harmony with the Original, Normal-law of the universe, when the grand acclaim shall be raised, 'There shall be no more death.' Candidly, Bro. Richards, do you not believe that the life power is mightier than the decaying and dying condition in the vast empire of being? If not, death would over-run all things and all life would become extinct. The life power holds the law of decay in check, and the struggle must end by the weaker antagonist yielding to the stronger. Life is the normal law of the universe. God lives and He is the life of all things. The law of decay must yield and universal life be restored and become the ruling condition, as in the glorious morning of time. 'There shall be no more death,' is a prophesy of nature in its vernal glories and floral beauties, and this prophesy is affirmed by the revelatious of God_S and inculcated in the lofty lessons of Masonry. If Bro. Richards accepts the Bible a from God, and believes in the religion of Nature, or natural religion, he will revise his' creed and incorporate therein the declartion of the able jurist and conscientious Masone Judge Howry, of Mississipi, whose last writings on earth declared: 'I believe in the, resurrection of the body and the immortality of the soul.' Our venerable Bro. Howrye since formulating the above creed, has passed to the realm of the living and beyond th, scene of the dying. He has tested the soundness of his creed. By a pure and godly life he won peace and hope here, and lost nothing by such a life, if there be no future for him hereafter. So, Bro. Richards, you and your brother correspondent, must soon meet similar conditions and destinies. The creed of Bro. Howery is not unworthy our intelligence and nature, and will do us no harm here and may serve us admirably hereafter. 'I speak as unto wise men. Judge ye what I say.'" In Bro. Vincil's report we find much more which is well worth reproduction, but the foregoing must suffice now.