"Scarcely had he uttered these words, when M. de Crivelin looked at him with terror in his face-he turned pale-tottered—and scarcely able then to control the terror and dismay which he experienced, he ordered his servants to retire, and bade the man to follow him." (To be concluded in our next.) MALTA. In a communication to Bro. Morris, of the American Freemason, Bro. J. B. McLeonard Moore, of Ottawa, C. W., gives the following information respecting Freemasonry in Malta: "In reply to your question, I must say, that according as I know you understand Masonry, I fear you would be much disappointed with Masonry in Malta. It is not more famous, either in work or acts, than any other place in England possessing a Lodge. The Knights of St. John, before the British Government took possession of the Island, were opposed to Masonry, though a Masonic Lodge was held there, which I found after some research. "When I left the Island, in 1851, there were three Lodges, of the oldest of which (St. John's and St. Paul's) I was Master. This was founded in 1814 by the famous Judge Waller Rodwell Wright, who lies buried on the Island. He was Grand Master of the English Templars, I think, in 1812. The other two Lodges were 'The Union of Malta' and The Zetland'-all three had Royal Arch Chapters attached to them. The working, however, was very uncertain, as they were principally kept up by the officers or the garrison, the fleet and casual visitors to the Island. There is one Encampment, The Melita,' which I believe I was the means of forming. It was established under the Grand Conclave of England. "I had the pleasure of installing the United States Consul, Wm. Andrews Winthrop, Esq., formerly, I think, of Boston, who took much interest in Masonry. "The Island is well worth a visit, and would repay you. I, of course, was interested in it, and had many opportunities of obtaining information on subjects to my taste. The most curious was the Mark Masons' marks on the stones in some of the mines; these were published some time ago in the London Freemasons' Review by my friend D. Joinville, who made the search with me. heraldic bearings of the Knights of St. John, with their peculiar marks, gave me great pleasure. I had access to the old Library and Church of St. John, where I perused the statutes and ordinances of the Order, and I now know that much of the Scotch Ritual of the Knights of Malta in my possession is correct." The APPEALS FROM THE DECISIONS OF THE W. M. It is not to be expected, perhaps, that every Mason, or that the great body of the Craft, will quickly acquire a correct knowledge of the duty and authority of the Master of a Lodge. His duty and authority, however, in the main we consider to be well settled. The Worshipful Master, at least, should be familiar with them, and for ignorance on these points he can give no reasonable excuse. The means of information are at hand-they are all around him. It is an imperative duty for him to examine them, study them and get the necessary light to guide his footsteps into the right path. We shall refer, at this time, only to a subject which appears to be but little understood, and to be entirely misapprehended. Not unfrequently a clause is inserted in by-laws, stating that on questions of order, &c., an appeal may be taken from the Master's decision to the Lodge. This is entirely wrong and wholly unmasonic. No member has the right to appeal, and in case an appeal were called for, we believe, the Master should at once decline to entertain it. The W. M. is a representative of King Solomon-he is supreme in his Lodge as far as any action there is concerned. He is not responsible to its members, but to the Grand Lodge for his conduct; and as far as the work of his Lodge is concerned, and the correctness of its business proceedings, he alone is responsible to the Grand Lodge. To allow an appeal to the Lodge, would be subverting one of the oldest and most substantial principles of Masonry, and the Worshipful Master would no longer be Worshipful Master, but a mere presiding officer, to carry out the will of the members, and act entirely under their directions, like the president of a political meeting. Such a state of things would at once revolutionize Masonry, and by introducing an innovation, materially injure, if not destroy it. Mackey, in his principles on Masonic law, says: The Master presides not only over the symbolic work of the Lodge, but also over its business deliberations, and in either case his decisions are reversible only by the Grand Lodge. There can be no appeal from his decision, on any question, to the Lodge. He is supreme in his Lodge, so far as the Lodge is concerned, being amenable for his conduct in the government of it, not to its members, but to the Grand Lodge alone. If an appeal were proposed, it would be his duty, for the preservation of discipline, to refuse to put the question. If a member is aggrieved by the conduct or decisions of the Master, he has his redress by an appeal to the Grand Lodge, which will, of course, see that the Master does not rule his Lodge "in an unjust or arbitrary manner." But such a thing as an appeal from the Master of the Lodge to its members is unknown in Masonry. This may, at first sight, appear to be giving too despotic power to the Master; but a slight reflection will convince any one that there can be but little danger of oppression from one so guarded and controlled as a Master is, by the sacred obligations of his office and the supervision of the Grand Lodge, while the placing in the hands of the Craft so powerful, and at times, and with bad spirits, so annoying a privilege as that of immediate appeal, would necessarily tend to impair the energies and lessen the dignity of the Master, while it would be subversive of that spirit of discipline which pervades every part of the Institution, and to which it is mainly indebted for its prosperity and perpetuity. It may be asked whether the W. M., in case the by-laws of his Lodge allow an appeal, should be governed by them in that respect. We answer emphatically, No. If the Master were bound by that provision, he would be bound by every other; his action might be clogged in such a way that no authority would be left him-that he might be required to preside as a mere instrument. It is the duty of the Master to guard and preserve the dignity and authority of his office, and see that they are in no way infringed upon, and in any case such as we have referred to, the provision of a by-law should weigh no more with him than a straw. Every Master should, of course, be willing to consult with well informed Brethren, and learn the wishes and desires of all the members of his Lodge, and give their suggestions due consideration; but when it comes to the period of making decisions, the responsibility rests on his shoulders, and he cannot, if he would, change it. He cannot in accordance with Masonic law and usage-in accordance with the great principles of our Institution-permit an appeal to be taken from his decision to his Lodge, when that appeal may reverse his decision. The following from Dr. Oliver is very appropriate in the present rage for Masonic emblems: "Masonry does not expect her votaries to expose her to the gaze of the world; in her modesty, she shrinks from the boast of her existence, preferring rather to see her advertised through the medium of · untold benevolence and acts of hidden charity. Her excellencies flourish most when cherished in the warm bosom of charity that vaunteth not itself, rather than in that sort which bringeth forth the flower without the fruit." 10 VOL. II. NO. II. ST. JOHN OF JERUSALEM.* St. John the Almoner, patriarch of Alexandria, C. He received his surname from his profuse almsdeeds; was nobly descended, very rich and a widower, at Amathus, in Cyrus, where, having buried all his children, he employed the whole income of his estate in the relief of the poor, and was no less remarkable for his great piety. The reputation of his sanctity raised him to the patriarchal chair of Alexandria about the year 608, at which time he was upwards of fifty years of age. On his arrival in that city, he ordered an exact list to be taken of his masters. Being asked who these were, his answer was: "The poor," namely, on account of their great interest in the court of Heaven in behalf of their benefactors. Their number amounted to seven thousand five hundred, whom he took under his special protection and furnished with all necessaries. He prepared himself by this action to receive the fullness of his grace in his consecration. On the same day he published severe ordinances, but in the most humble terms conjuring and commanding all to use just weights and measures, in order to prevent injustices and oppressions of the poor. He most rigorously forbade all his officers and servants ever to receive the least presents, which are no better than bribes, and bias the most impartial. Every Wednesday and Friday he sat the whole day on a bench before the church, that all might have free access to him to lay their grievances before him, and make known their necessities. He composed all differences, comforted the afflicted, and relieved the distressed. One of his first actions at Alexandria was, to distribute the eighty thousand pieces of gold, which he found in the treasury of his church, among hospitals and monasteries. He consecrated to the service of the poor the great revenues of his see, then the first in all the East, both in riches and rank. Besides these, incredible charities flowed through his hands in continual streams, which his example excited every one to contribute according to their abilities. When his stewards complained that he impoverished his church, his answer was, that God would provide for them. To vindicate his conduct and silence their complaints, he recounted to them a vision he had in his youth, of a beautiful woman, brighter than the sun, with an olive garland on her head, whom he understood to be charity, or compassion for the miserable, who said to him: "I am the eldest daugter of the great king. If you enjoy my favor, I will introduce you to the great monarch of the universe. No one has so great an interest with him * Butler's Lives of the Saints. as myself, who was the occasion of his coming down from Heaven to become man for the redemption of mankind." When the Persians had plundered the East, and sacked Jerusalem, St. John entertained all that fled from their swords into Egypt, and sent to Jerusalem, for the use of the poor there, besides a large sum of money, one thousand sacks of corn, as many of pulse, one thousand pounds of iron, one thousand loads of fish, one thousand barrels of wine, and one thousand Egyptian workmen, to assist in rebuilding the churches; adding, in his letter to Modestus, the bishop, that he wished it had been in his power to have gone in person, and contributed the labor of his hands towards carrying on that holy work. He also sent two bishops and an abbot to ransom captives. No number of necessitous objects, no losses, no straits to which he saw himself often reduced, discouraged him, or made him lose his confidence in Divine Providence, and resources never failed him in the end. When a certain person whom he had privately relieved with a most bountiful alms, expressed his gratitude in the strongest terms, the saint cut him short, saying: "Brother, I have not yet spilt my blood for you, as Jesus Christ, my master and my God, commands me." A certain merchant, who had been thrice ruined by shipwrecks, had as often found relief from the good patriarch, who the third time gave him a ship belonging to the church, laden with twenty thousand measures of corn. This vessel was driven by a storm to the British islands, and a famine raging there, the owners sold their cargo to great advantage, and brought back a considerable value in exchange, one-half in money, the other in pewter. The patriarch lived himself in the greatest austerity and poverty, as to diet, apparel and furniture. A person of distinction in the city being informed that the patriarch had but one blanket on his bed, and this a very sorry one, sent him one of value, begging his acceptance of it, and that he would make use of it for the sake of the donor. He accepted of it and put it to the intended use; but it was only for one night, and this he passed in great uneasiness, with severe selfreproaches for being so richly covered, while so many of his masters (his familiar term for the poor) were so ill accommodated. The next morning he sold it and gave the price to the poor. A friend being informed of it, bought it for thirty-six pieces, and gave it him a second and a third time; for the saint always disposed of it the same way, saying facetiously: "We shall see who shall be tired first." He was very well versed in the Scriptures, though a stranger to the pomp of profane eloquence. The functions of his ministry, prayer and |