A New Masonic History.*

A NEW MASONIC HISTORY . *

Continued from p 261 . IN the near commencement of the foregoing review of the " New History " wo find certain questions propounded by Brother Hnghan which , notwithstanding the admirable est-v & ys of the several authorities in various

departments of Masonic research , remain , to our mind , uoanswered . They are : —1 . Whence came Freemasonry ? 2 . What ia it ? 3 . What is it doing ? We will turn our attention to thane in regular order , aud endeavour to gather from onr own precis , or abstract of the larger

volnme , the information afforded in support of theories , or substantiation by facts . And first , Whence came Freemasonry ? Of theories we have many , but all of an nnreliable character ; of facte none which can convince . If the question were , Whence came Masonry ? we could satisfy

ourselves , moat probably , as to the period at which the art of bnilding was first known and recognised , the country of its rise and progress , and its subsequent introduction to other nations . The birth of Operative Masonry in distant ages can be traced by the history of its material

productions , and herein tho researches of the antiquarian are of considerable moment . But not so with Freemasonry whioh appears to have had its first introduction to the world in or abont A .D .1691 , when men of rank , professional men , and tradesmen were admitted into the " mystery "

at costs proportionate to their social position , and the term "free and accepted Masonry" is first recorded . Tho " mystery" was doubtless that of the Operative Stone-mason ; teaching him the useful rules of Architecture , and interesting him in the handiwork

pertaining to the respective positions of Apprentice , Journeyman and Master : —to hew , square and mould stones , and to carry on the various operations in building which require practical dexterity , and skill in geometry and mechanics . Ifc may be reasonably assumed that th :

purely operative character of the then existing guilds—more properly "gilds "—of Masons—composed of Workers in stone , wood , iron and other building material , —ceased , and a system of morality under tho title of speculative Masonry was founded upon the former customs and ceremonials of

tho ^ workmen , by those , probably better educated , and a * j to social position moro elevated , persons at that period introduced under the title of "Free and Accepted" to distinguish them from their labouring companions . This , as a statement of fact , not , however , reproduced in this

History , —if so , we have overlooked it , —was promulgated in the latter part of the eighteenth century , and for more than a hundred years has not been contradicted . ¦ " Authorities " in those days were not so common as in the present , and consequently thero does nofc appear to

have been any of that controversy and contradiction which characterises the Freemasonry of the present day . Brother Hughan speaks of " actual minutes of Lodges beginning as early as AD . 1599 , " and that may well be , as the records of Operative Masonry , and of tho "former customs and

ceremonies of the workmen . " It is shewn that at that period the reading of the " Old Charges , "—which were in themselves lessons of morality , and of a purely Christian character—with a certain amount of esoteric information constituted the whole ceremony of reception . There is no

proof whatever that the system of symbolism which now illustrates Freemasonry was known or understood . Wo are told in this " History " that " Degrees" formed no part of the " former ceremonial of tho workmen , " and it is admitted that without degrees there conld be no " signs ,

tokens , words , " or symbolic explanations of " working tools , " as we are now instructed . Too much reliance need not , perhaps , be placed on the statement that so late as 1787 there was no distinction of Lodges as E .. A , F . C , and M . M . Although three degrees are mentioned , however

there appears to have been even so recently bnt one O . B . to cover all the work . But no evidence whatever that Speculative Freemasonry , with signs and symbols , degrees

and ritual existed prior to the latter end of the seventeenth century has been produced , nor do we believe it can be . We are aware that this opinion will not be readily accepted by those amongst us

A New Masonic History.*

who are not content with reasonable conjectures as to the ancient character of the Institution as a science of morality , entirely apart from its former operative association , but would rather ante-date its origin beyond the limit of any possible assurance . These are far too enthusiastic to be

accepted as perfectly trustworthy authorities on the subject , and their arguments want more circumstantial evidence before they can be taken as other than surmises . The persistence with which some of our body endeavour to foster a belief in the minds of uninstructed members

that Freemasonry ante-dates the flood , and was practised as a science even at the building of Solomon ' s Temple , wonld be ludicrous , if it were not also disastrous to the dignity and respect of the Order . That the principles which form the base of tbe system are coeval with the

very beginning of human society , and are eternal , no one of ns could possibly with reason , or would desire to , deny ; but the scheme or plan by which these principles are inculcated for our observance is of very modern creation , and no attempt to dispute that faot should be mado without

strong presumptive evidence . Our answer to Brother Hughan ' s first inquiry , based upon the History before ns , is that Freemasonry was founded in England at or about the year 1691 , and was the outcome of a connection of men of social position aud intellectual acquirements with the

thitherto existing " gilds " of operative Masons . If anything can be advanced which can reasonably be presumed to confute this opinion we shall be , for the sake of truth , glad to know of it ; but if no such confutation can bo made let it be admitted , aud , once and for all , placed on tho records of the Institntion as an undeniable faot . We have

said " it wonld be a comfort to Modern Freemasons if the date of the change ( from Operative to Speculative ) could be ascertained and placed beyond controversy . " Let it be

so ascertained and placed now , and henceforth our ritualism , symbolism , and method of instruction will have a purpose and a meaning very different and far more useful than they afc present enjoy .

We gather the following facts in respect of Modern Masomy , which really means the inculcation of the principles of morality and virtue by analogy of ideas , and by symbolizing material objects , from various portions of the entire work : —In 1717 Modem Masonry was derived from the

first Grand Lodge holding jurisdiction iu London and Westminster . Between this date and 1723 the distinctivel y Christian character of Freemasonry was abolished , and tbo doctrine of universality substituted . Up to the latter dale the F . C . OB M . M . degree teas conferred only in Grand

Lodge or by dispensation . In 1723 the first Book of Constitutions was published . In 1725 the restriction as to the " raising " of brethren was removed and Masters of Lodges then conferred that grade , but we do not find thafc any such ceremony as we now practise was in vogue . Indeed in

that period of Masonic evolution bufc few brethren became Master Masons , and it is not until 1733 and in the second Book of Constitutions ( Anderson ' s ) that the three degrees are mentioned by their separate title * -. Up to this date Masters of Lodges were generally elected every six months .

The -- Royal Arch * as au organized body is first mentioned in or about 1744 , and the first practice of tha ceremony of Installation of W . M . ' s dates from only 1809 . The Con * stitution of the United Graud Lodgo of England , with the articles of the Act of Union , and the declaration that pure

Antient Masonry consists of three degrees and no more , including the supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch , is as recent as 1813 . Here we have an epitome of the condensed information relating to the evolution of Freemasonry 1717-1813 , which permeates the pages of the " History " before

us , but which has not now been given to the Masonic World for the firsfc time . Ifc has all been put before English Craftsmen by their own compatriot and Masonio historian , Robert Freke Gould , whose grand work on the same subject , published in 1883 , ought to be in the library of every earnest Freemason . It will still hold its own even in

comparison with the compendious volume we have just reviewed . To be candid , there is in this new History but little in connection with " pure and simple Freemasonry " which , in so far as it relates to English and not especially to

American Freemasonry , cannot be found in the several works of Bros . Gould and Hughan . Its great merit is that the ideal of a handy , condensed history of the Society is fully realised , and all that any wishful Maaonio student could reasonably desire in one volume , —covering the . whole

period of Masonio activity , —is amply ,., clead y ^ and accurately set forth in its pages .