Masonic Mysteries Revealed.

a week OP two since it caught onr eye as we passed alonp Paternoster Row . We have read it , and those among oui readers who have done the same are sufficiently well posted ns to the truth , if any , of its revelations . What we arc anxious to point ont is , that the writer is one of a class of

persons whoso word is utterly unworthy of acceptance , ancl those who have employed him ! o compile the book are in the same position . Does it not occur to " A No . \ -MAS ox re COXTIUBUTOI :, " to our Liverpool contemporary , that the word of a man -who violates a solemn obligation , voluntarily

contracted , is not to he trusted , and that any such persor appearing in a Court of Law to give evidence would injure instead of promoting tlio success of the suitor in whoso behalf he was subpoenaed . No righteous judge or jurv would place the slightest faith in what he said . He

stands out clearly before the world either as a perjurer , if what he reveals is the truth , or ns an impostor , if it is not , and a person who figures in either of these characters will not be believed even on oath . There is yet another reason why the word of this particular perjurer should be

rejected off-hand , and without the slightest degree of ceremony or hesitation . It is proudly admitted by " A NONMASONIC CON'TRIUUTOU " that ho ( the author of the book ) " boils over in his hatred of the body . " Here , then , wc have the case of a most violent partisan tendering evidence

against a society which he finds it impossible to denounce too strongly . Moreover , he is a Roman Catholic—we are told so , at least—and the Church of Rome has never missed an opportunity of excommunicating Freemasonry . Thus the author in question is doubly a partisan and a

perjurer or impostor to boot . Will "A NON-MASONIC CONTIUBUTOR" forgive us if we point out that his acceptance of the evidence of such a person is a sign of one of two things , namely , of his own partisanship , or of a certain amount of mental imbecility , or it may be obliquity on his part . If

we assume that our Liverpool contemporary ' s correspondent is a man of sense , we are justified in imagining that any ideas he may have of tlio character of Freemasonry and its tendencies nre unfavourable to our Society . At all events , there must be something more than " an air

of truth " about what a perjurer or impostor says for nny one to write ns though he accepted it unreservedly . Or if he recognises that a person who divulges what he has sworn to keep secret is a perjurer , nnd , therefore , un-Avorthy of credence , it follows that a man who accepts

the revelations of such a person is , in common parlance , if not exactly in tho politest language , a fool . These arc considerations which , it occurs to us , should have presented themselves to the mind of a thoroughly impartial nnd well-principled man .

It is sufficient reason for questioning the truth of a statement when wc know that it is uttered by ono who , ns we have pointed out , is cither a perjuror or an impostor , and whose word , even when it is solemnl y pledged in open court on the Holy Book , would bo at once rejected by

every judge nnd jury iu the United Kingdom . There is yet another point to be considered . We nre given to understand that these supposed revelations of our mysteries are made by a Roman Catholic . Now , the hatred evinced by the Roman Catholic priesthood towards Freemasonry is

well known of nil men , nnd it occurs tons that it is a very pertinent question to ask . How came theso revelations to be made ? Were they made nnder threats of eternal damnation which that priesthood claims to be in a position to award to unruly members of that section of the Christian

Church ? Did the supposed i-cvclations take place under the seal of confession ?—and if so , how comes it that a member of the Roman Catholic priesthood—whoso boast it is that nothing so revealed is ever made known to the public—has been false to his Church ? Where is this

amazing perjurer or impostor who has written this wonderful book ; or , at all events , is supposed to have supplied the information on which it has been written ? He need have no fear of coming forward and announcing himself as the author , or the author ' s informant . There is no Mason who

would think of injuring even a single hair of his head . We can promise that he will not be subjected to nny of the supposed penalties of his faithlessness . Ho will , perhaps , be closely scrutinized , he and his antecedents and belongings . That is only natural , and no more than is done every day by

naturalists , when a curious but offensive natural phenomenon , or some vile member of the animal kingdom is brought under their notice . We should like to sec what manner " of man it is who has betrayed his Order , just as it would have been a very natural but pardonable curiosit y on our part

Masonic Mysteries Revealed.

f , in the event of our having lived contemporaneously with Judas Iseariot , we hnd been anxious to glean all AVO pos . - . ibl y could of that arch-traitor ' s antecedents and belongings . Among the members of the animal kingdom which an Allwise Providence has seen fit to create , are the skunk and

the polecat , and other vermin . They have their uses , though it may not be in the power of man to appreciate such uses , and therefore the student of natural history looks inquiringly into their habits and mode of life . And for a like reason we should desire to make the acquaintance

of a perjured Freemason . He must be a curious , not to -ay , unique order of being , and we should like to hear all about his habits and mode of life . Let the supposed revealei' of our mysteries reveal hinself , that we may bo in a

position to identify him with a former member of a certain Lodge , who was initiated , passed , and raised , and who took the degrees of Mark , Arch , and Templar Masonry on certain days . We , as an organ of * the maligned society , have a ria-ht to demand that our accuser shall be brouobt face to

( ace with us . so that the world may judge as between him and us . Is he s imc degraded , some vicious member of the Roman Catholic priesthood , who had no scruples about entering our society in order that ho might palm off on the pnblic a parcel of lies as the mysteries of Freemasonry .

What reward was held out to him for undertaking the nasty office ? Was it absolution for his past , and indulgence for all future sins ho might bo guilt y of ? Or did he receive , like his prototype , Judas Iseariot , somo thing tangible in the way of reward for his presumed

treachery ? All these , and much else that we might add , are part and parcel of the inquiries which it is lawful for ns to institute respecting this perjurer or impostor . However , we have written even more than we had intended ou this unsavoury subject , and it strikes us that what must

mostly annoy this author of " The Secrets of Freemasonry , " is the supremo indifference with which the Masonic body regards these astounding revelations . For him and his friends to find that after all his treachery—or imposture , as the case may be—Freemasonry still flourishes like a green

bay tree , that its ramifications are extending daily in new directions , and that AVO nre gradually being regarded with mote favour the more people understand the nature of our Society—this must bo gall , indeed , to the foul-minded miscreant who has tried to ruin ns . That the consequences of

all his treachery and imposture should affect him and him alone , nnd the clique that supports him , is the greatest proof the Avorld could possibl y have that he and his socalled rcve ' ations are a wilful and gross misrepresentation or distortion of the truth .

So-Called " Compact " Of The Four Old Lodges.

SO-CALLED " COMPACT " OF THE FOUR OLD LODGES .

BY BRO . JACOB NORTON .

I HAVE read with caro the first two or three articles by Bro . Gould , npon " Tho Four Old Lodges , " likewise the letter on pace © 291 ( FREEMASON ' S CIIKOXICLE , 2 nd November ) , and promise to read the remainder as soon as time permits . While , therefore , I candidly confess that I am not prepared to judgo as to the soundness or un . soundness of the respective views of JJros . Gould or Hughan , vet

I cannot refrain noticing with regret that so able a writer and investisrator as Bro . Gould is , should labour under the common Masonic delusion , to lament and bewail the violation of so-called ancient landmarks . Tho Lodgo List of 1738 ( Anderson ' s Constitution ) gives ns a hint ( rinoted bv Bro . Gould in a previous paper ) that Lodjjo No . 10 was

one of the four original Lodges , but for some reason tlie Grand Lodge in 1723 made tho said Lodgo take out a Warrant , and placed 't on the Lodge List as No . 10 , and hence Bro . Gould , on page 2 . 91 , finds fault with the Grand Lodge . Thn following are his reasons : — " The acceptance , of a Warrant [ by the said Lodge ! in 1723 was

followed by no penal consequence until 1729 . Onr brother further informs ns that , " immediately after the publication of the engraved list for 1729 , when , for the first time , Lodges wero shown in order of seniority , a protest was registered by tho original No . 3 , against their misplacement in the printed book , whereby they lost their rank . "

Our Bro . Gould thereupon vents his indignation aga : r : st the Grand Lodge as follows : — ' That the degradation of this Lodge six years after the occurrence upon which the decision of the 'four Grand Officers' was bused ( approved , however , by tlio Grai . d Lodgo who dismissed the appeal

i > f tbe parties concerned ) , besides b' -intf an ev fost facto law . wns un undoubted violation of the original Constitutions ( embodied in the solemn compact of 1721 ) by which only the four old Lodges were governed , and was , moreover iu manifest , breach of the LANDMARK set up as a check to innovation aud absolute dominion , viz .: —