Prefatory Remarks,

Several causes, chiefly the very effective one of ill-health, have led to my withholding the appearance of the second part of the pamphlet on Masonry much longer than I intended. I have regretted this all the more, as the first number seemed so truncated or incomplete. I now hasten to present to the public the concluding portion, confining it to such limits as to render this second part less extended than the first.

Before resuming the subject, however, a few words are naturally called for by the criticisms which have been spoken or written on the idea, object, or motive of the pamphlet generally, as well as upon the contents of the first number. As was my aim in the body of the little work, so here I shall study to unite brevity with explicitness or unmistakeable clearness. I would call particular attention to the following three paragraphs :—

(a.)	That shortly after my having denounced a bad Catholic for having become a Mason, there should appear in the columns of a loca journal the report of a lecture on Freemasonry which had been delivered by a worthy, nay, a reverend Mason, to Masons and in a Masonic Lodge, in which it was sought to be shown that the Institution was most admirable and calculated to develop all that was most noble in man, and in which the Catholic Church was cried to shame for her action towards it; moreover, and much more, that I should have been denied the privilege of replying : all this was galling above measure.
(b.)	It had come to my ears that even a fairly-instructed Catholic had expressed himself in company thus : "Well, I don't see why the priest should be so hard against Masonry—why, I believe even one of the Popes was a Mason." Bless us! What ignorance on such an important matter! Yet it is deplorably common.page iv
(c.)	I feel intense pity for those outside the pale of the Catholic Church who are duped by this hugest of humbugs.

Thus have I given the circumstances and the motives which urged me beyond the resisting, and in spite of the most wretched state of health, to endeavour to supply a truthful, though imperfect, picture of the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing. Condemn me who will.

In the whole tenor of my little pamphlet I seek only to carry out the direction of the saintly Pius the Ninth, who addressed the clergy thus in his letter of November 21, 1873:—"Do you, venerable brothers, do your best to strengthen the faithful committed to your care against the snares and cankers of these sects, and to save from destruction those who have unfortunately joined them. Do you especially disprove and show up the errors of those who, from bad faith or through deceit, do not shrink from asserting that these secret assemblies have for their only object social progress and advantage, and the practice of mutual benevolence. Explain to them, and fix deeply in their minds, the Pontifical decrees on this matter, and show that they refer not only to the Masonic Societies in Europe, but to those that exist in America and throughout the countries of the world." I may here observe that no work, large or small, that I have seen on Freemasonry has for object directly, or keeps in view simply, the vindication of the action of the Catholic Church re this sect.

In what I have written, I defy contradiction. Furthermore, I challenge any man to prove satisfactorily that even the first oath of the Apprentice (see page 15, part 1.) is such as suits any but an out-and-out secret and wicked Society. Let me here give a passage from Leo XII., which is pretty much to the point :—"Shut your ears to the words of those who, in order to persuade you to assent to join the lower grades of their Societies, affirm most emphatically that in those grades nothing is permitted which is contrary to reason or to religion; and, further, that nothing is seen or heard which is not holy, and right, and pure. Yet, that wicked oath which we have already mentioned, and which has to be taken even in the lowest grade, is enough in itself to make you see that it is criminal to join even the lowest grades, or to remain if you have joined. Moreover, although the weightier and more criminal matters are not usually committed to those who have not attained to the higher grades, yet it is very plain that the power and audacity of these mischievous Societies are page v increased in proportion to the number and the unanimity of those who have inscribed their names. Therefore, those who have not passed the lower grades must be held guilty of the crimes committed by any in the higher grades" (March 13, 1826). And now, if Masons acknowledge, as they must, that the copy of the oaths, etc, which I have given, is correct, why seek to contend against the truth? Why rebel against good sense and conscience? What species of argument is it to frown and growl behind the priest's back? To what good can it tend to dream of substituting for reasonable and honourable argumentation a most mean kind of persecution of any of his people?

But, "here's the rub"—"there will always be a difficulty in discussing arguments based on the inner working of Freemasonry," since "the members of the Order are pledged to silence, and if they disclose its secrets they can only do so by violating a very solemn obligation." Thus spoke the Timaru Herald, having set itself right worthily to make a mighty effort to defend this secret organisation. On this reasoning, an intelligent farmer said to me a couple of days after its appearance : "Why, Father, does not that prove most powerfully against Masonry—that a body of men should have their mouths sealed in such a manner? What can there be amongst them that is to be kept so secret? Surely it is repugnant to natural reason that a man should take such an oath or obligation." I leave my friend of the Herald answered capitally by the good man who daily follows his horses.

The article of the Herald goes further, and asks: "Is a whole organisation to be condemned because of the practices and teachings of some of its members?" Now this is weak in the extreme. With all deference to the writer of the article (the editorship has since changed hands), I assert that in this line of expression is distinctly discernable the determination to say something, however flimsy, to please the Masons. I would almost believe that he had read the first part very cursorily indeed, or even in that he should have perceived that I do not depart from the golden rule—that we must judge of an organisation by its principles, as learned from reliable documents, as well as from its initiated, that is, advanced and well-instructed members; that we can detect its spirit in certain of its externals. We will permit him such a "test," or standard of judgment if he candidly wishes to examine into the Roman Catholic Church, confident that he will find in her "inner operations" nought but holiness and "the page vi finger of God," and in her ceremonial, the most beautiful, aye, divine consistency To come to the point, I say that I have contended, and hold fast to the contention, that the oaths and ceremonies (as found in the 2nd chapter of No. 1.) alone present to any right-thinking person sufficient justification of the Catholic Church in her denunciation of Freemasonry.