The Freeman's Journal And Bishop Dupanloup's Pamphlet.

THE FREEMAN'S JOURNAL AND BISHOP DUPANLOUP'S PAMPHLET .

THE appearance of an English version of the Bishop of Orleans ' s recent pamphlet against Freemasonry affords the Freeman ' s Journal another opportunity for attacking our Order . We cannot congratulate our contemporary on the achievement of a very brilliant success .

There was nothing new to say , but occasionally it is convenient to traverse the same ground . The " damnable iteration " of the same folly at length assumes , in the eyes of some people , an appearance of wisdom . There are folk who are weak-minded enough to believe that a lie repeated

many times becomes a truth . Therefore it is we do not severely blame the Freeman ' s Journal that , in carrying out its policy of denunciation against us , it should keep on pegging away , for an occasional convert to its views may be the result . But some will ask , Why , then , notice these

attacks ? Well , we have faith in an offensive defence rather than in one that is purely defensive . Having reviewed the tactics of our enemy , we have come to the conclusion

that the mine it is so anxious to explode against us is best met by a counter mine . Our generalship may not commend itself to all , but the line we have adopted appears to us the fittest under all the circumstances . Thus it is we

meet the enemy , boldly instead of spurning him quietly . Whether this policy is superior to all other policies , or , rather , till it is shown that some other policy is more desirable , it is the one we shall follow in all such cases . We have said the Freeman ' s Journal advances no new

arguments in support of its attack on the Craft ; there were none to advance . Wisely , then , has it * contented itself with repeating the stock arguments as to Freemasons being a body of men without religion , and animated by the most profound hatred for all legally constituted

governments . Rather be it said , this organ of Popery says " ditto " to these statements of the Rev . Bishop of Orleans . It endorses , also , another argument , which is decidedly unorig inal on the part of Monsignor Dupanloup , that the

kings and princes , and , generally speaking , the men in high places , who join our Order are studiously kept in ig norance of the real secrets of Masonry . Their presence in our ranks lends an eclat to the Craft which it could not

hope to obtain by any other means . We enrol them accordingly , and initiate them into a few of the more harmless mysteries , but the secrets of the Order , its true aims and purposes , these are sacredly guarded from their knowledge , for this reason : were they known to the royal

and princely Masons , they would fly from us in the greatest horror . All these statements sound well . They have a certain air of plausibility about them , and it is very probable they may seduce thoughtless and weakminded people into believing them . It occurs to us ,

however , to ask , in the first instance , is a man who has most grossly perjured himself exactly the kind of man whose -ipse dixit we accept unreservedly . Masonry is not obligatory upon anybody . They only enter who seek entrance of their own free will and accord . Some of those who bind

themselves to guard certain secrets , in due time , and to serve their own foul ends , divulge them to others . Is it in accordance with reason or common sense that such men should be accepted as truthful exponents of the secrets of

Masonry . Had they bound themselves to secresy under some overwhelming sense of fear , or as the only means of escape from some dreadful calamity , the world would to a certain extent absolve them from the crime of perjury . But

The Freeman's Journal And Bishop Dupanloup's Pamphlet.

they voluntarily bound themselves to accept a certain obligation , and in the most shameless manner they break faith . Would the evidence of such a person carry weight with it in any court of law ? It is possible , of course , that a liar may for once in his life speak the truth , but the worst of being

a liar is that one ' s word is never accepted . The testimony of a man who has deliberately forsworn himself is worthless , even were his evidence true . It is the reverse of creditable to the Bishop of Orleans ' s common sense and his knowledge of the world that he should attach the slightest

value to the statements of men who have lied in the open day . But there may be concurrent testimony . Where ? Why , in the rituals . But a published ritual that contained all or any of the secrets of Masonry is as direct and flagrant a violation of Masonic law as an oral statement of

our secrets . Only a dishonourable man would dream of putting pen to paper and describing what he has bound himself not to reveal . Thus the rituals which the Bishop has become possessed of , even if they contained the secrets of Masonry , are as worthless as the oral testimony of the

perjurer . Again , certain of our customs are described as being silly . Admitting , for the sake of argument , the accuracy of the description , we bear in mind what a certain poet of old has said : —Dulce est desipere in loco . Horace , heathen as he was , had evidently studied human kind to

greater advantage than our French ultramontane prelate of the nineteenth century . Allowing that a table napkin is called a banner , a knife a sword , a glass a cannon , and that toasts are drunk as described by the Bishop , what after all is there but a little harmless folly , as far removed

from atheism and politicalplottings and conspiracies as is the North from the South Pole . We fancy if the Bishop were at a Scottish banquet and saw the toast of the evening drunk with the full honours , he would smile a smile of pity , if not of contempt , that grown men should comport

themselves so strangely . Yet a true Scot thinks it no sin to show his enthusiasm in the manner prescribed of custom in his country . The cynic may urge that a " Kentish fire , " is an act of lunacy , that to drink a toast with musical honours is directly opposed to the dictates of common

sense . We recal what Horace said , " It is pleasant occasionally to make a fool of oneself , " and contentedly abandon the cynic to his cynicism . Then as to the various ceremonies of initiation as described by the Bishop . There are one or two passages in his account which justify us in

believing that his reverence must have been studying the pages of Verdant Green , and has taken for solemn fact what the author of that exceedingly funny book intended only as a good joke . The next time the Bishop Contemplates writing a pamphlet against Freemasonry , let him

invest in a French version of the late Captain Marryatt ' s PercivalKesne . He will find in it a most interesting and , as a matter of course , a most authentic account of how is given the sign by which Freemasons make themselves known to each other by day , at all events , if not by night .

We need not dwell , however , on what the Bishop regards as the ludicrous aspect of Masonry . We have our customs , and some of them may strike the non-Mason as being extremely silly , but everynation under the sun has certain customs , and each looks upon the other ' s customs as more

or less ridiculous . What is sacred with one people is unholy in the sight of other people , nor has the Bishop any greater right to laugh at Masonic ceremonials , supposing him to have formed a right conception of their nature , than a Mahommedan or Hindu has to ridicule the rites and ceremonies of the Christian Church . However , the climax of absurdity is reached when the Bishop proceeds to show