What Bro. Pike Believed In 1871 And What He Believes Now.

proportion to their object , for it was as brief as it possibly could be ; nor did the Masons abandon " tbe cap of liberty " a few years before Masonry crossed the Atlantic .

True , something was abandoned , that is , in 1717 they abandoned the old operative ritual and constitutions , in which religious intolerance was embodied , viz ., " to be true

to the Church , and to entertain no heresy . " This law was abandoned in , or soon after 1717 , and for it was subtituted in tho first Charge as follows : —

" But though in ancient times Masons were charged in every country or nation to be of the religion of that country , whatever it was , yet it is now thought more expedient only to oblige them to be of that religion in which all men agree , leaving their particular opinions to

themselves , & c . And , furthermore , how could Bro . Pike claim that the mission of Scottish Masonry was to tread under foot

despotism and tyranny , and at the same time believe that the most unscrupulous despot , Frederick of Prussia , could have patronised such liberty-loving , and tyranny-hating Masonry as Bro . Pike imagined it to have been ? Bro . P .

says : " It is said that in May 1786 Frederick was not competent to transact any business . That is not true . He was competent and did it ; [ viz . that he wrote the Charleston

charter ] . He was not known , it is said , to have had anything to do with high degrees . Of course not . If he [ Frederick ] was at the Rite of Strict Observance , or real Templarism , the outside world would not have been very likely to know it ; there is no evidence to prove that

[ Charleston ] Constitutions were forged . We do not believe they were . We know that before 1786 Frederick was regarded by the Masons of the Rite of Perfection as their head ; for Bro . Solomon Bush wrote to him as such from Philadelphia ( we think ) in 1873 . "

The facts however are : Frederick was neither at the head of the Strict Observance , nor of the A . and A . Rite . The Strict Observance was no more real Templarism than the Templarism of Bro . Gouley . Solomon Bush never

wrote a letter to Frederick either in 1783 or at any other time , and the most impartial investigators have unanimously denounced the Charleston Charter of 1786 as a forgery .

" Tho Scottish degrees ( says Bro . P . ) are Scottish and not French ; they are Scottish for reasons of which the editor ( Gouley ) seems to bo profoundly ignorant . "

But Dr . Manningham ' s letter of 1756 , and Lyon ' s " History of Freemasonry in Scotland , " as I shall hereafter show , prove that Scotland was not the birthplace of high degrees . Bro . P . further says :

" The Royal Order Herodom of Scotland wo know to be very ancient . It claims to have been established in 1314 by Robert Bruce . " Bro . Pike also believed that James III .

in 1721 sent a warrant from Arras , " authorising certain London Knights to confer the Rose Croix and Kadosh Templar Degrees , " and that Charles Edward Stuart , son of the former , established a Rose Croix Chapter at Arras in 1747 .

Now , Dr . Manningham ' s letter of 1756 , which has often been printed ( see Mackey's Cyc , art . Manningham ) , gave the first blow to the pretension of Scottish high degrees . These so-called Scottish degrees are claimed to have been worked at Kilwinning . But Bro . Lyon says :

The Fraternity of Kilwinning never at any period practised or acknowledged other than Craft degrees ; neither does there exist any tradition worthy of that

name , local or national , nor has any authentic document yet been discovered that can in the remotest degree be held to identify Robert Bruce withholding Masonic courts , or the institution of a secret society at Kilwinning . "

In short , the Royal Order of Scotland was manufactured in the last century . Bro . Gould proved conclusively that Charles Edward . Stuart was not a Mason , and , as to the alleged Masonry of James III ., it is too absurd to be

discussed . After Bro . Pike has no zealously advocated the antiquity of his high degrees , which , as already shown , is without any foundation , it is rather amusing to read the following . He says : —

Intelligent men may probably be induced to respect Masonry more if it will persuade its writers to indulge less in ridiculous inventions , gravely published as

traditions ; to cease relying for evidence of antiquity on charters that are not genuine , and manuscripts of apocryphal authority , pretended to exist in the Bodleian Library . . . and also , if they will become ashamed of

What Bro. Pike Believed In 1871 And What He Believes Now.

claiming as Freemasonic associations the old working guilds of Stonecutters , with Christopher Wren as a Grand Master . " Now , with all due respect to Bro . Pike , I must say ( 1 st ) , wbile Bro . Pike believed in the Robert Bruce Masonry , and

the genumeneness ot the Charleston Charter of 1786 , the censure he designed for the writers of ridiculous inventions , & c , is equally applicable to himself ; and ( 2 nd ) , while I agree with him that the Bodleian Henry VI . does

not exist , and that Christopher Wren was not a Grand Master , I cannot see how he could impute the parentage of our Freemasonry to any other source than to the stonecutters of the Middle Ages . For , in the first place , the

Lodge of Antiquity MS . 1688 is essentially the same as that of the Alnwick Operative Lodge , which continued an operative Lodge for many years after 1717 , and the records of all the old Lodges in Scotland , that formed there the

Grand Lodge in 1736 , prove conclusively that from first to last they were operative Lodges . So far , I had good reason to find fault with Bro . Pike ' s credulity ; but next comes something better . He says : —

" Criticism is continually occupied in dissecting history , detecting forgery , and resolving annals into myths and legends , and Masonry cannot escape the searching investigation . Bro . Mackey says , ' the laws which govern the

institution of Freemasonry are of two kinds , written and unwritten , the latter are derived from the traditions , usages , and customs of the Fraternity as they have existed from the remotest antiquity , the written law is derived

principally from the following sources : —1 st , The Ancient Charges , said to have been written in the days of James II ., and 2 nd , The Regulations adopted at the General Assembly held in 1603 . '

" But , " adds Bro . P ., "that learned brother must well know that no Masonic Charges were written in the reign of James II ., and there is no evidence at all that any General Assembly was held in 1663 . " Again , " How many of us know which among the symbols of

Masonry are really ancient and which are modern , so modern as not to have been used before the beginning of

this century ; we know how long it had been pretended , exciting the quiet contempt of the well-informed , that the Saints John were patrons of Masonry , " & c . Again , " Since the publication of Findel ' s history , it would be

quite as well for Masons of other Rites to say very little about the A . and A . Rite being modern . The positive statements of that careful historian that the Master ' s degree was not known prior to 1700 ( ivhich are unquestion , ' ally true ) should teach them a little caution . . . Until

after 1700 there were no degrees in Masonry . There were Apprentices , Fellows free of the Craft , and Officers called Masters and Wardens , but no degree of Master Mason , or any other . " ( The italicising above is Bro . Pike ' s ) .

After asking Gouley the meaning of Tork Rite , Bro . P . proceeds to show the modernness of the several groups of degrees called Tork Rite , and says , " The Royal and Select Master was wholly unknown .

until about 1800 . The Chapter degrees were fixed up by Webb not long after that time ; and that Templarism , as worked in this country , is wholly different- , from the Order of that name in England and on the Continent of Europe , and more modern than even the Council and Chapter

degrees . " Again : — " He ( Gouley ) stated that the ' Order of Temple ' has existed in this country for nearly eighty years , and in Europe , in one form or another , for near seven hundred

years . The Masonic Templar Degree was carried from France into England about 1750 , and worked in the Dermott Lodges . In 1791 Dunckerley put himself at the bead of the Encampment , in which that and other degrees of Herodom Kodosh were worked ... In England ,

before 1791 , Masonic Templarism was worked by artizans and mechanics , and the degree was given for a few shillings . It never had the least connection with the Templar Order , and is not now recognised by the Scottish

and English Templars . The Order of the Temple in France is wholly a different thing . The American degree was made by Webb , and Templarism is not a whit more connected or related to the genuine Chivalric Order of the Temple than Odd Fellows .

" If it is proper to call any Rite bastard and illegitimate , none deserve it more than the American , which is one of the latest in the world , younger than the Rite of Misraim of Badarrid , and , including the Council degrees , as young as the Rite of Memphis of Marconi ' s de Negre .