Hints To His Faultfinders.

HINTS TO HIS FAULTFINDERS .

BY BRO . JACOB NORTON .

IT is very curious that—while our Masonio writers rarely trouble themselves to find fault with such contributions as , for instance , thafc the Henry VI . MS . is true ; or that early in the fourteenth century ex-Knisrht Templars were Masonised in Scotland ; or , as another maintained , that it was so done at York , besides other absurdities thafc appear occasionally in Masonic papers — if I

happen to point ont evidence that might clear Mrs . Dnnckerley from the charge of adultpry which her son imputed to her , or that the Christopher Wren Masonio stories by Anderson and Dermott are un . reliable ; or thnt our Cvclopaedists are not infallible ; our selfappointed " defenders of the faith " immediately become excited , and one after another come forth to protest , to apologise , or to find fault .

Now , I do not imagine myself infallible , and I have no objection wbatever to be criticised , and if any one can show that my facts or inferences are wrong , I would cheerfully thank them for it . But it seems to me that my faultfinders ( if tho three criticisms above referred to were nofc written by one and the same person ) find fault merely for the sake of disoonraging investigation and inquiry . They seem to have committed themselves to some popular Masonio absurdities , and therefore fear that their turn may come next .

" When sheep are shorn , the lambs tremble . " The defender of Dnnckerley has by no means satisfied me with his defence . It smacks very mnch like a sharp lawyer ' s one-sided plea . I must , however , defer saving any more about it at present , because I have , as yet , been unable to got the sixth volume of the Freemasons' Maqazine to which he referred for his additional

information . To the second faultfinder I have already replied last week , and lo the apolocy of my third critic , that the two Aberdours in Bro . Woodford's Cycl' « pa 3 dia , was a mere " clerical error , " and that it did not mislead any one except Bro . Norton , I shall say , in the first plnce , that it seems very improbnble that Bro . Mackenzie and Bro . "Woodford should have coincided in makinsr tho same clerical

error in their respective Cyclopaedias . And , secondly , I beg to assure my critic that others besides myself would have been misled by a statement supported by two Cyclopaedias . A Cyclopaedia is only valuable when it is reliable , and when it is unreliable , it is a mere nnisnnce . Now , within a few years , three Masonic Cyclopaedias have trade their appearance , and if the general

opinion of the Masonic press could be relied on , each of these Cyclopaedias mnst be faultless * . But on examining Dr . Mackey ' s Cyclopaedia , I found so many errors , so many exploded statements , so many subjects irrelevant to Masonry , nnd so much Buncombe , that I can safelv aver , that if these redundances had been loft out , the bulk misht have been reduced to a sixth of its size , or even less .

Bro . Mackenzie's book is less bnlky , and contains consequently fewer errors . Bnt , nevertheless , this author imitated Dr . Mackey ' s plan too closely , and therein he was wrong . A Cyclopaedia of Agricnltnre should be confined exclusively to all subjects connected with farming . A farmer ' s daughter here and there may learn to play on the piano , but that is no reason why an article on mnsic shouid be

Ingcred into a farmer's Cyclopaedia . A Cyclopaedia of Masonry should in a like manner be confined to Masonic subjects ; for instance , the articles in Bro . Mackenzie ' s Cyclopcedia on the Talmud , Kabballa , the Baal , Shem ( Dr . Falk ) , the legend about Christ , of tho St . John ' s , Christians , & c . These articles may be very amusing and instructive , bnt they are as much out of place in a Masonic Dictionary

as they would be in a dictionary of mathematics , music , or any other similar work . Asrain , the Hebrew words in a Masonic Cyclopaedia ( aud some of them faulty too ) are merely put in therefor Bun combe ' s sake . The " Aleph , " says Bro . Mackenzie , possesses peculiar sanctity ; ifc refers to the Trinily , and by distorting it , it may bo made into a Sfc . Andrew ' s

Cross . Now , all this is mero twaddle ; the Aleph is no moro sanctified than the Beth . The inventor of that letter knew nothing about St . Andrew's Cross , nor had he the remotest notion about tho Trinity . Bnt suppose the inventor of the Aleph had really been a Trinitarian , what has the Hebrew Aleph or the Trinity to do with Masonry ? It is not my intention to write a regnlar review of Bro .

Mackenzie ' s Cyclopaedia , but before I part with the subject , I mnst call attention to a blunder of Dr . Mackey which is incorporated in the book before me . I mean the twenty-five so . called "Masonio landmarks . " I have had several controversies about" ancient landmarks " with English and American brethren , in the course of which I . have shown

that while Dr . James Anderson was really tho greatest Masonic innovator , yet it was Dr . Anderson who Masonised the phrase " ancient landmarks . " Halliwell ' s poem is minus of frieborn ; it merely ordains , " ye -no bondman prentice take . " This no bondman law was imposed by Acts of Parliament , not upon Masons alone , but upon all trades . I have also proved that neither the Strasburg

Constitution of 1459 , nor the Turgo Constitution of 1462 , contain any reference to "free born , " or to " no bondman . " Nay , even the sound limb law was not mentioned in tho German Constitntions ; but yet sound limb and free bom are placed by our Cyclopaedisrs—Mackey and Mackenzie—among the landmarks , or irrepealable Masonic lavvs . Our American landmarkers bombastically compare Masonic laws to the laws of the Medes . and Persians , both are alike irremovable . Well ,

thePope also had irrepealable laws , and it is a well-known fact that the downfall of the Pope's power was mainly , if not entirely due , to his irrepealable laws . The downfall of the Medes and Persians was perhaps in a like manner due to their irremovable laws , and the same causes will help the downfall of any other society . The Stuart Dynasty were also great landmark sticklers . " Divine right of Kings , " and " our prerogative , " were their ancient landmarks . The antiquity of those notions they traced to William tha

Hints To His Faultfinders.

Conqueror , to King David , and to King Nimrod . No one disputed tho antiquity of the said landmarks . Bufc , nevertheless , John Bull kicked against them . They wero nofc consistent , he said , with his own common sense . At last Mr . Bull became disgusted with the persistency of the landmark sticklers , and to get rid of them , he decapitated one King , and sent another , with bis

landmarks , on a tramp to France . Since that time " Divine right of Kings" ceased to bo claimed by English Sovereigns , and " our prerogative" meant the right of the people to make , alter , or abolish any law or laws whenever they think proper to do so . Such being the case , irrepealable laws became an impos - sibility in England , because each Parliament is empowered to abolish

the laws passed by all preceding Parliaments . "The prerogative of the people" is really and truly the landmark of landmarks , and it is older than other so-called landmarks . Ifc was not created by legislation , because it is older than the oldest legislative code , and it cannot bo destroyed by legislation . Brutal force of Kings or priests mav for a time obscure it , but it—the prerogative of the people

—is sure to re-establish its rights in spite of adverse legislation . If then the prerogative of the people is Nature ' s own indestructible and irremovable landmark , then tho Masonio theory of irrepealable laws ia both absurd , and futile . The fact is , " ancient landmarks , " in the Masonic sense of tho phrase , was invented in behalf of kingcraft nnd priestcraft . With

snch a phrase , all kind of oppression and superstition has been defended . When an old usage , creed , or law , is assailed , if there is any intrinsic merit in it , it will bo defended on the ground of its merit . It is only when there is really no merit in an old usage , law , or creed , that its defenders resort to tho olea of " ancient landmarks . " "Whenever , therefore , " ancient landmarks" is appealed to

in a debate , we may bo very snre that the landmark pleaders have neither reason nor justice on their side . Of this fact Masonic history furnishes ample illustrations ; thus , the exclusion in America of colored Masons from white Masons ' Lodges , the exclusion in Prussia of Jews from Masonry , the retention of sectarianism in Masonio ritnals , and the fanatical spirit evinced acainst the Grand Orient of France , were all defended on the

plea of ancient landmarks . But when we come seriously to reflect where the theory of " ancient landmarks" will lead us to , then its absnrdity becomes so manifest that , I think , even Bro . Mackenzie will be compelled to laugh at it ; thus , in plain language , " Remove nofc the ancient landmarks , " simply means , that we must never try to become either wiser or better than our great , great grandfathers were , a thousand or

more years ago . In short , the phraso ancient landmarks is a delusion and a fraud , and the sooner we discard it from Masonic nomenclature tho better will it be for Masonry . Bro . Woodford ' s Cyclopaedia is less bulky than either of the former , it is also minus of the landmark superstition , and ifc is free from

Hebrew words , and if the author had omitted Latin , French , and German , the book would not have been less valuable ; tho work , however , is not free from faults , and the only chance we have of getting ultimately a good Masonic Cyclopaedia is , for every one who discovers the shortcomings of our present Cyclopaedinns , or who can suggest any improvement for Masonic

Cyclopsedins to publish their ideas freely and fearlessly . "Wo must never mind offending an editor , aud we mnst discard the Masonic literary practice of " you tickle me , nnd I will tickle you . " We need not , however , use harsher language than is absolutely necessary , nor shonld we refrain from civins ? duo merit where ifc is due . But the

mere fear of giving offence should never deter ns from exposing errors or from concealing the truth . Such is my determination to deal with Masonic subjects , and such I hope it will continue to be as long as I can wield a pen , and as long as Masonic editors will publish my communications .

In conclusion , I beg to assure my faultfinders thafc I am very grateful to Bro . Woodford and to Bro . Kenning for many acts of civility and goodwill I receive from them . My private friendship to Bro . Woodford has , however , never deterred me from coming into conflict with him on Masonic subjects . If I recollect right , our first " friendly tilt , " as Bro . Hughan calls it , was about Dnnckerley . "We

have also differed about ancient , landmarks , bufc we nevertheless remain good friends . With Bro . Mackenzie I have not the pleasnre of being personally acquainted , but I am grateful to him for the notice he once took of a request of mine for information about a certain book , said to have been published by Ramsay , in Dublin , in

1737 . * The above remarks , about his book ( with a great deal of which I heartily agree ) was certainly not dne to any ill feeling on my part towards him . My faultfinders will , therefore , understand thafc my criticisms were prompted by no other motive than that expressed in the previous paragraph .

Ad00402

ROYAL POLYTEC HWTC . —CYPRUS , its history and characteristics . THE MICKOPHONE AND TELEPHONE . THE GIANT PLATE MACHINE . DUBOSCQ'S ( JHROMATIO FOUNTAIN . TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION with the DIVER , & c . THE PARIS EXHIBITION' . THE KAFFIR WAR . PIIOF . PEPPKH ' S Interestina and Instructive Sanitary Lectures , entitled PURE AIR , PURE FOOD and PURE WATER . EVOLUTION UP SPECIES— Concluding daily , at 4 and U , with a MUSICAL JUMBLE and THE BABES IN Til *! WOOD , by Mr . SETHOCB SMITH . —Admission to the whole , Is ; Open at 12 and 7 , Carriages at 5 and 10 .