About Our Philadelphia Masonic Landmark Sticklers.

indication that Masons had pledged themselves to adhere to the laws enacted by their predecessors , for the number of lawn in each MS . vary , anil they did not even retain the old titles for tlioir laws , for instead of calling them " Articles" and "Points , " they gave the new name of

" Charges" to their laws . It is evident , therefore , that tho successive generations of Mason ? , from tho timo tho Constitution in tho old Poem wns written , until 1717 , wore not bound by any solemn obligations to adhere to every jot and to every tittle of law enacted by their predecessors :

the very phrase " Ancient Landmarks " cannot bo found in a pre-1717 Masonic MS . Nor can I seo that tho Masons of 1717 cared for preserving old notions . Thns , before 1717 , no Masonic code of laws was allowed to be printed ; but after 1717 thoy printed a

Constitution , in spito of the opposition and protects of some of the old Masons . Again , in olden time , tho President of a Masonic Assembly was called either Master , Warden , Elder , Alderman , and iu Scotland he was sometimes called Deacon ; but after 1717 came into existence Grand Masters ,

Grand Wardens , with some dozen other Grands , with titles of Wor ., Rt . Wor ., M . W ., Ac . Again , hufoxo 1717 tho first Charge given toa Mason was— "To be true to the Holy Church and to entertain no heresy . " . Hut after 1717 , " Holy Church " was expunged from tho Chargon . Still

again , before 1717 Masons had but one degree , but after 1717 had at first three degrees , but since thonj Masonic degrees havo multiplied by scores and hundreds . But strange to say , tbat whilo our landmark sticklers object to the initiation of a man whose little top . was amputated , and

to a dozen other frivolous violations of the old Masonie laws , they yet swear up and down that somo scores of ceremonies from tho R . A ., the Kt ., < fcc , aro all bond fide " ancient Masonic degrees . " Now , just compare either of the pre-1717 Masonic Codes

with Anderson s Constitution of 1717 , and compare the last named Constitution with the successive English Masonic Constitutions which have been printed since then , and we sno at once that "Ancient Masonic Landmarks" is men buncomb . An essential law may indeed be preserved for

hundreds of years , and oven for ever . It is preserved , not because it is old , but because it is essential . But it is simply the height of folly to preserve au old law after it ceases to be essential , and still more so after it begins to clash with new-born ideas , and becomes injurious to a society .

Admitting , however , for the sako of argument , that some Masonic laws are irrepealable , I still mean that the old law against illegitimate sons did not belong to the class of irrepealableness , and is not a landmark . First . It is certain that neither Anderson nor Mackey regarded that law as a landmark .

Second . At my initiation I was told that the qualifications for Masonry were " a just and upright man , free by birth , of mature age , sound judgment , and strict morals ;"

and not a hint was given about " sound limb , " and not a word was uttered about illegitimacy of birth . Hence , neither sound limb , nor illegitimacy of birth are Masonic landmarks .

And I must add that " free-born" is not an ancient landmark , because in the Regius Poem the qualification there laid down is merely " that he no bondman prentice tako . " And besides which , as already stated , the Grand Lodge of England substituted " freeman " for " free-born "

some years ago . Third . Thomas Dunckerley avowed himself to have been an illegitimate son of George III . But nevertheless he was not only Provincial G . Master of Dorset , Gloucestershire , Somerset and Southampton , with the City and County of

Bristol and the Isle of Wi ght , but Bro . Sadler says , that in 178 G he was made into a Past Senior Grand Warden , " with the ri ght of taking his place immediately next to the then Senior Warden . " It is evident , therefore , that in 1786 the G . L . of England did not regard tho illegitimate son law as a landmark .

Fourth . King Athelstan could not have allowed the insertion mto his Masonic Constitution of a law to debar an illegitimate son from Masonry , because he himself was an illegitimate son . Fifth . As Bro . MacCalla believes in our old Masonic

traditions , he necessarily believes in the tradition found in oldest "Ancient Charges" that Euclid mado no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate born sons ; for his Lodge was composed of sons of tho Egyptian nobility , and some of the said sons were horn of their own wives , and

About Our Philadelphia Masonic Landmark Sticklers.

some were by other men * * trices . If , therefore , the Masons of the 14 th century made a law diametrically opposite to what existed for eighteen hundred previous years , then the G . L . of England could with a good conscience abolish the law of the 14 th century by restoring Bro . Grand Master Euclid ' s old law .

And Sixth . As King Solomon ' s mother gave birth to an illegitimate boy , and Solomon's father was tbe parent of an illegitimate boy , Solomon , therefore , would never havo insulted tho memory of his mother and father by inserting into his Masonic Constitution a law to prohibit an

i'legitiinato son from riding onr Masonic goat . Looking , therefore , at the question from Bro . MacCalla ' s own orthodox standpoint , I cannot say that the law against an illegitimate son can bo either very ancient , nor an irremovable landmark .

" Boston notions " is a common proverb in America , meaning thereby that Bostonians have bccnliar notions of thoir own . Tho American Tyler , however , is of opinion that in Masonic notions Philadelphia not only beats

Boston , but it beats tho whole creation . " Pennsylvania Masonry , " says tho American Tyler , is not like tho Masonry of any other stato or country under tho sun . " Its reasons for th ' vS opinion aro as follows viz .:

—liio . Vaux , I ' . O . M . of Pounsylvauia , baa assorted that drunkenness adultery , embezzlement , false pretences , gambling and cheating are not Masonic ofl ' euoes , [ aud ] it Lodge is not justified by any rule of Masonic jnriBprndeuco to try a brother charged with any of these acts as a Masonic offence ; bnt there is one—adultery—whioh is within the jurisdiction of Masonio offences . "

It is evident that Brother Vaux believes with Brother MacCalla in Mackey ' s 25 th Landmark , viz ., " that nothing can be subtracted , and nothing can ba added " to the laws enacted in the 14 th century , and as tho old law makers prohibited only ono kind of adultery , viz ., with the wife of

: i fellow , aud as they did not mention cheating , embezzling , & o . among Masouic offences , therefore , saith Bro . Vaux , " a Lodgo is not justified by any rule of Masonic

jurisprudence to try a brother charged with any of these acts as Masonic offences ; " and of course , as no new law can be added to the old regulations , hence embezzlement , cheating , & o . can never be made into Masonic offences .

Now , all that would havo been very fine reasoning if our Philadelp hians had refrained from creating new Masonic offences—I mean offences which the Masons of the

fourteenth century never dreamed of . But such is not tho case , for it is well known that the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania had withiri a few yoars made what is known as " Cerneauism" into the highest kind of Masonic offence , and that both Grand Master MacCalla and P . G . M . Vaux

approved of the said new law . Now , if the Grand Lodge could make a now law to expel brethren from Masonry because thoy belong to the Cerneau organization of tho Scottish Rite , why may not a Grand Lodge make a law to expel Masons for cheating , embezzling , and all kinds of adultery ?

The fact is , thirty or more years ago , the best informed Masons knew only about Masonic history what they learned from Anderson , Preston , and Oliver . That period may truly be called the dark ages of Masonry , hence Mackey , Moore , and other writers of that kidney , wero

respected and venerated as great Masonic oracles , and whatever nonsense they wrote was sucked up by tho influential Masons as " gospel truth . " Since that timo , however , we have had some valuable information on Masonic history from the writings of Brothers Findel ,

Steinbrenner , Lyon , Hughan , Gould , and others , which information changed the old opinions . Writers on Masonic jurisprudence and of ancient landmarks of the Oliver and Mackey school are now regarded as being either a pack of

cranks , or as mere charlatans . I think , therefore , that it is now high time for oven our orthodox Philadelphia Masonic writers or orators , to feel ashamed of writing or talking about Masonic landmarks after so many well

informed Masons have admitted that " Masonic Landmarks " is a more Masouic delusion , and , comparatively speaking , it is a recent manufactured delusion besides . BOSTON , U . S ., 30 th July 1801 .

HOILOWAV ' S I ' ltts . —Indigestion , Stomach and Liver Complaint * . —Persons suffering from any derangements of the liver , stomach , or the organs of digestion should have recourse to Holioway ' s rills , as there is no medicine known that acts on these particular complaints with such certain success . Its peculiar properties strengthen the stomach , increase tho appetite nnd ronso

the sluggish liver . Fnr bowel complaints it is invaluable , as u removes every primary derangement , therehy restoring the piticnb to the soundest health nnd ftrength . TheiO preparations may tie used at all times and in all climates by penons affected by biliousness , nausea , or disordered liver ; for flatulency and heartburn they are specifics . Indeed no ailment of thc digestive organs can long resist their purifying and corrective powers ,