-
Articles/Ads
Article Original Correspondence. ← Page 2 of 3 Article Original Correspondence. Page 2 of 3 Article Original Correspondence. Page 2 of 3 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Original Correspondence.
of Free and Accepted Masons . The assertion has been made by us that it was our firm belief they arranged the institution substantially as it existed subsequently for nearly one hundred years . They arranged it as a body having no connection with the art , trade , or business of stone-cutting ,
architecture , or building ; whilst , fully aware of the prestige the high antiquity of the operative society , would confer upon it , they retained and , in their ancient allegorical sense , directed the usage of the principal working tools of Operative Masons ; so much of the language of these workmen when met in a
congregated capacity , and such of their laws as could be adapted to the uses of this new society . The 'Ancient Charges , ' in contradistinction with the general regulations in Anderson ' s book , first printed in 1723 , prove this , as the former , refer in no manner to any other than an organisation of
Operative Masons , stonecutters , and builders . . " We have said that the Freemasons , in common with their fellow artizans and artificers had organised corporations in the principal cities of Europe during the middle ages , and to those corporations were subject all members of them engaged in that
distinctive business . In Germany those corporations enjoyed peculiar immunities , were under the special protection of the heads of Church and State , and flourished in the greatest prosperity during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries . In England and Scotland they had their seats of government ; in the
one at York and at London , in the other at Edinburgh . James VI . of Scotland , and II . of England , Scotland ' s last king , had , by royal edict , ordained that St . Clair of Roslin should be noble patron of the Freemason Corporations in Scotland during his natural life , and his male issue enjoy the same
privilege after him . In England , by reason ofthe wars which afflicted that country during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries , it is presumed the Freemason corporations had not any royal or noble patrons to which they were subject . As patrons , therefore , and in view ofthe benefit their names and position might
afford to the local association , noblemen and gentlemen of distinction were admitted as honorary members into those companies , resident in the city or town where any public building was in progress . In this way we find that , in 1641 , Robert Moray , by profession a soldier , by position
Quartermaster-General of the Scottish army , was admitted into the company of Freemasons ; and , five years afterwards , in Warrington , in the County of Lancaster , and Kingdom of England , Colonel Mainwaring , a prominent gentleman of that city , and lineal descendant of him who once owned the estate upon which that
city is built , with Elias Ashniolc , an antiquarian , were received into the Freemasons' Company of that city . The diary of the latter record the fact , and date of this reception into , not a secret society of Freemasonry , but into the Freemasons' Company . Those gentlemen , as we have said , were received
merely as honorary members ofthe respective Freemasons' Companies at Edinburgh and Warrington ; and while their reception was intended as a mark of respect , it afforded them none of theprivilcgcswliich appertained to the active members of the particular Companies of Working Masons into which tliey
were received , or any other with which they were in communion or correspondence . Upon the contrary , they were especially designated as" Accepted " Masons , that is , members by permission , and not by virtue of any right , probation or education peculiar to a Working Mason . Thiswas the origin ofthe
qualifying adjective , Accepted , at present used , and very unnecessarily , as wc know of but one kind of legally made Freemason , viz ., he who is made in the body of a lawfully-constituted lodge , working under a warrant granted by a legally constituted Grand Lodge . Many others , gentle and noble , it is but
reasonable to believe , were accepted in the same manner , and for the like purposes within the forty years between those dates , but , with the exception of another reception of this kind that look place in London , on the nth March , 16 S 2 , at which Sir William Wilson , and many other men of distinction
were received into the Freemasons' Company , of that city , we have no record of any other in any history within our knowledge . " So long as tlie object for which those receptions were accorded was in good faith adhered to , no trouble or dissatisfaction resulted from them ; but
it may well be believed that in the political struggles of that century which in England witnessed the death of Charles I ., the establishment of Cromwell ' s Commonwealth , and the restoration of the monarchy in the person of Charles II ., every means which could bc would be used to favour the one
interest or the other engaged in those struggles , and the private if not secret meetings ofthe Freemasons ' Companies would be made use of in which to plan some of the movements of those interests . Those years were disastrous to peaceful occupations , and
the practice of any art , trade or science , not conducive to war ; hence thousands of workmen whose business did not involve warlike labours were idle , and became necessarily soldiers . Here was an opportunity for those Accepted Masons of rank to
Original Correspondence.
use their influence on the side ofthe monarchy , that first estate that hael ever patronised , fostered , and consequently lived in . the affections of the Masons . This , however , is but natural surmise . Wc know nothingbeyond this , that when Charles was restored to his throne the Freemasons' Companies of
England had seen their most prosperous days , and the last years of the seventeenth century found their governing bodies , or principal , at London and York dissolved , and the year 1700 disclosed the existence in the former city of but four feeble associations or Freemasons' Companies , the Operative Masons of
which bad been engaged on St . Paul s Cathedral , then but a few years completed . "The Accepted . Masons , however , were not affected by the dissolution of those companies . The very weakness of the one was the strength of the other The thoughtful and far-seeing among better
educated honorary Freemasons failed not to appreciate what an engine for good or evil were the privileges which for so great a length of time had been enjoyed by the Operative Masons , and that the prestige of a life old as that of civilised Britain itself would not be destroyed by any change that might be made in
those bodies , provided enough ofthe forms and language of their assemblies was preserved . With , then , the design in view of remodeling the institution , we find that in that one of those four remaining assemblies that held its meetings in the neighbourhood of St . Paul's Cathedral , the proposition
was introduced—it can scarcely be doubted by one of those Accepted Masons—to henceforth no longer confine the candidate for admission to Operative Masons , but to extend the privileges of the society to all men found worthy . In 1703 , as Preston in his ' illustrations , ' informs us , we find this proposition
substantially adopted by this lodge or assembly in the following language : — " ' The privileges of Masonry shall no longer be restricted to Operative Masons , but extended to men of every profession , provided they arc regularly approved and received into the Order . ' *
Now , to the most simple casuist there is here apparent , in view of the prevalent belief among Freemasons that the Freemasonry of to-day is the Freemasonry of the seventeenth and all prior centuries , a manifest and insurmountable discrepancy , and one that certainly destroys that belief . If the
lodge of St . Paul possessed the right claimed by all lodges at the present day to receive into its membership all sorts and conditions of men , subject only lo the reservation in this resolution , why was it necessary to adopt and promulgate this resolution 1111703 ? That that lodge or assembly of persons
was composed mainly of Operative Masons must bc evident . Its name ofthe Lodge , or Builders' Company of St , Paul , betoken this ; and that they had been engaged on that erection . It was composed , ns well , of some few Accepted Masons ; and being thus composed , it is reasonable to believe that the
views entertained by the latter were not favourable to their further occupancy of so anomolous a position , nor to the continued existence of tbe lodge with their languishing and publicly discouraged condition , but that a new life and a better grip upon public sympathy and respect was , at least by them ,
earnestly desired . In its then operations there was nothing to command respect , and in this regard it was but the type ofthe other three , which , in common with it , assembled in taverns or drinking hostclrics ; there was nothing in its practice to win the favour of any but those of its members who ,
month after month , or mayhap at shorter periods , met as at a ' free and easy , ' to talk anel sing , lo eat and drink , and smoke tobacco ; and before its style or practice could bc changed , some radical measure by which accessions from among others than Operative Masons , stonecutters , and builders
could be gained must be legalised . Hence wc have the memorable act of the assembly at the Goose and Gridiron in St . Paul ' s Churchyard in 1 703 , and with it the birth of a society to be composed of all sorts and conditions of men , subject only lo certain reserved provisions , to bc known thenceforth by the name of FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS . ' '
I will not intrude further upon your space , but subscribe myself . Ycurs respectfully anel fraternally , AN AMERICAN FREEMASON . Buffalo , N . Y ., June 4 , if . 70 .
It is possible Preston copied the language of this sentence exactly ns il appeared upon ihe record of this lodge , but , in view of contemporary facts , \ vc must doubt . The word " Order" is one thai , ns applied to Freemasons , \ .-c believe- was then v . nkni . v . n , and its insertion here does noi tend lo slrenglhc !] the . ¦ eiitciwe in its nutirjuily even
when he- wrote 1 , threc-quaile-is of n eenluiy afterwards , but , on the- contrary , modernises il very much . Dr . Anderson , ill his ' I ' . i . ok of Constitutions , ' * first published in 1723 , makes no allusion in any part of his work lo an " Order , " nor uses ihal word once , 'i he word " Fraternity " nlu . 'c is used by him i-i speaking of Freemasons as a sodality .
Original Correspondence.
( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I cannot help making a few remarks on Bro . Yarker's letter at page 296 , referring to the 1717 theory . He says : "The phase through which we are now passing arises in part from mistaken and illogical views as to universality , leading writers , for the sake of it , to
advance theories it is impossible they can believe themselves ; and in part from the admission by journalists of letters by writers upon a subject for which their education and knowledge unfit them . " May I ask Bro . Yarkev to give your readers the benefit ofthe logical reasons by which he has come to such a conclusion ? Because those who advocate
the side opposed to him might , for the same reason , say the same thing ; and it is ' well , for the elucidation of truth , that there are journalists who open their columns to writers whose views are opposed to each other . Anel it may bc observed that education assists those in the pursuit of knowledge who have intellectual power ; but it cannot give
faculties to the mind where the understanding is deficient . Neither ( and it is well for the poor ) does it require a college education to make a man of understanding . Further on , Bro . Yarker says : " I am not merely advocating my own opinions , but what I am also taught by High Grade Freemasonry , so much ridiculed and even so little understood by
its own members . " And , again , he says : " As our philosophical system is one of secrecy , let each be content with his own degree , without interfering with a superior step ; for it is only the perfected brother who is the true universalis ! , and the possessor of the key to all religious truth . " Docs this mean that High Grade -Masonry opens up a new
and an easier way to heaven , or a more comprehensive system of moral philosophy than is contained in the Holy Scriptures , which is open and free to all , and independent of the secret system of philosophy he boasts and thinks so much of ? As for his advice to " be content each with his own
degree , & c , " I hope no brother , black or white , initiated or uninitiated , will take any heed of it ; but let them use every effort to discover the hidden secrets of nature , and lay them open to all for the glory of God and the good of man . Yours fraternally , W . G . DORIC . P . S . —I would like to see a few extracts from writers or works , published before 1717 , proving the existence of Freemasonry . Assertions by writers of a latter date arc no proof . W . G . D .
ANTIQUITY OF FREEMASONRY . ( To the Editor of Ihe Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —The Masonic challenge which 1 threw down in your columns lately has been , unknown to me , copied out and published in many of the daily newspapers ; amongst others , it appeared in the Glasgow Evening Star and in
the Edinburgh Evening Couraut . Bro . Chalmers I . Paton observing this writes to both of these papers attacking my ideas ; but ; forgets to inform mc that he has done so . Consequently , I knew nothing of the matter until some time had elapsed . I consider this , under the circumstances , scarcely fair , or even manly ; to attack mc in an Edinburgh
paper was like firing at mc from behind a hedge . However , latterly , 1 saw both his letters , and replied to them ; and as you have afforded Bro . Paton an opportunity of ventilating his views in your columns , as per pp . 273 and 274 , perhaps you will be so kind as to give me a portion of your valuable space to show the answers which I gave to his unsupported statements , viz . : —
I beg to observe at the outset that Dio . Paton ' s letter is full of mistakes and misrepresentations . He may not he aware of this ; but such is in reality the case . As to the ' unquestionable fact that James II . of Scotland appointed the Karl of Orkney Grand Master of the Masons of Scotland , " thai is an nin / nestionable dream , and lhe very document he points to lo support this ' fact '
prove it lo be an untruth—ns I explain below . That the Masons were only common Craftsmen is clearly shown by the ' Burgh Records of Aberdeen , ' and such like really authentic works ; anil at the old trade processions it was the smiths and not the Masons who took the post of honour , each with the token of his Craft ou his breast . The old wrights and Masons were often classed together
while in the Act of King Henry VI . of EnglaneT anent the Masons , ihey are classed as 'labourers . ' In fact , since last . summer when , in the Freemason ' s Magazine , I asserted that Freemasonry , or Speculative -Masonry , was only 152 years old , I have been carrying on the war continually against all and sundry the supporters of the ' ancient antiquity'of Freemasonry , nnd I have never met one who could produce any substantial proof that onr
rrcemasonry existed he-fore 1717 . " I may here describe what Freemasonry is . There have been two kinds of Freemasonry . The Freemasonry of the fifteenth century , say , was lhe art of building houses , churches , etc ., of stone and lime . A Freemason then was a Mason free of his guild . The secrets they were to keep then were trade secrets ; and while there were Free Masons then , there were also free carpenters , free weavers , & c . ; and all the handicrafts were known as ' mysteries . '
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Original Correspondence.
of Free and Accepted Masons . The assertion has been made by us that it was our firm belief they arranged the institution substantially as it existed subsequently for nearly one hundred years . They arranged it as a body having no connection with the art , trade , or business of stone-cutting ,
architecture , or building ; whilst , fully aware of the prestige the high antiquity of the operative society , would confer upon it , they retained and , in their ancient allegorical sense , directed the usage of the principal working tools of Operative Masons ; so much of the language of these workmen when met in a
congregated capacity , and such of their laws as could be adapted to the uses of this new society . The 'Ancient Charges , ' in contradistinction with the general regulations in Anderson ' s book , first printed in 1723 , prove this , as the former , refer in no manner to any other than an organisation of
Operative Masons , stonecutters , and builders . . " We have said that the Freemasons , in common with their fellow artizans and artificers had organised corporations in the principal cities of Europe during the middle ages , and to those corporations were subject all members of them engaged in that
distinctive business . In Germany those corporations enjoyed peculiar immunities , were under the special protection of the heads of Church and State , and flourished in the greatest prosperity during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries . In England and Scotland they had their seats of government ; in the
one at York and at London , in the other at Edinburgh . James VI . of Scotland , and II . of England , Scotland ' s last king , had , by royal edict , ordained that St . Clair of Roslin should be noble patron of the Freemason Corporations in Scotland during his natural life , and his male issue enjoy the same
privilege after him . In England , by reason ofthe wars which afflicted that country during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries , it is presumed the Freemason corporations had not any royal or noble patrons to which they were subject . As patrons , therefore , and in view ofthe benefit their names and position might
afford to the local association , noblemen and gentlemen of distinction were admitted as honorary members into those companies , resident in the city or town where any public building was in progress . In this way we find that , in 1641 , Robert Moray , by profession a soldier , by position
Quartermaster-General of the Scottish army , was admitted into the company of Freemasons ; and , five years afterwards , in Warrington , in the County of Lancaster , and Kingdom of England , Colonel Mainwaring , a prominent gentleman of that city , and lineal descendant of him who once owned the estate upon which that
city is built , with Elias Ashniolc , an antiquarian , were received into the Freemasons' Company of that city . The diary of the latter record the fact , and date of this reception into , not a secret society of Freemasonry , but into the Freemasons' Company . Those gentlemen , as we have said , were received
merely as honorary members ofthe respective Freemasons' Companies at Edinburgh and Warrington ; and while their reception was intended as a mark of respect , it afforded them none of theprivilcgcswliich appertained to the active members of the particular Companies of Working Masons into which tliey
were received , or any other with which they were in communion or correspondence . Upon the contrary , they were especially designated as" Accepted " Masons , that is , members by permission , and not by virtue of any right , probation or education peculiar to a Working Mason . Thiswas the origin ofthe
qualifying adjective , Accepted , at present used , and very unnecessarily , as wc know of but one kind of legally made Freemason , viz ., he who is made in the body of a lawfully-constituted lodge , working under a warrant granted by a legally constituted Grand Lodge . Many others , gentle and noble , it is but
reasonable to believe , were accepted in the same manner , and for the like purposes within the forty years between those dates , but , with the exception of another reception of this kind that look place in London , on the nth March , 16 S 2 , at which Sir William Wilson , and many other men of distinction
were received into the Freemasons' Company , of that city , we have no record of any other in any history within our knowledge . " So long as tlie object for which those receptions were accorded was in good faith adhered to , no trouble or dissatisfaction resulted from them ; but
it may well be believed that in the political struggles of that century which in England witnessed the death of Charles I ., the establishment of Cromwell ' s Commonwealth , and the restoration of the monarchy in the person of Charles II ., every means which could bc would be used to favour the one
interest or the other engaged in those struggles , and the private if not secret meetings ofthe Freemasons ' Companies would be made use of in which to plan some of the movements of those interests . Those years were disastrous to peaceful occupations , and
the practice of any art , trade or science , not conducive to war ; hence thousands of workmen whose business did not involve warlike labours were idle , and became necessarily soldiers . Here was an opportunity for those Accepted Masons of rank to
Original Correspondence.
use their influence on the side ofthe monarchy , that first estate that hael ever patronised , fostered , and consequently lived in . the affections of the Masons . This , however , is but natural surmise . Wc know nothingbeyond this , that when Charles was restored to his throne the Freemasons' Companies of
England had seen their most prosperous days , and the last years of the seventeenth century found their governing bodies , or principal , at London and York dissolved , and the year 1700 disclosed the existence in the former city of but four feeble associations or Freemasons' Companies , the Operative Masons of
which bad been engaged on St . Paul s Cathedral , then but a few years completed . "The Accepted . Masons , however , were not affected by the dissolution of those companies . The very weakness of the one was the strength of the other The thoughtful and far-seeing among better
educated honorary Freemasons failed not to appreciate what an engine for good or evil were the privileges which for so great a length of time had been enjoyed by the Operative Masons , and that the prestige of a life old as that of civilised Britain itself would not be destroyed by any change that might be made in
those bodies , provided enough ofthe forms and language of their assemblies was preserved . With , then , the design in view of remodeling the institution , we find that in that one of those four remaining assemblies that held its meetings in the neighbourhood of St . Paul's Cathedral , the proposition
was introduced—it can scarcely be doubted by one of those Accepted Masons—to henceforth no longer confine the candidate for admission to Operative Masons , but to extend the privileges of the society to all men found worthy . In 1703 , as Preston in his ' illustrations , ' informs us , we find this proposition
substantially adopted by this lodge or assembly in the following language : — " ' The privileges of Masonry shall no longer be restricted to Operative Masons , but extended to men of every profession , provided they arc regularly approved and received into the Order . ' *
Now , to the most simple casuist there is here apparent , in view of the prevalent belief among Freemasons that the Freemasonry of to-day is the Freemasonry of the seventeenth and all prior centuries , a manifest and insurmountable discrepancy , and one that certainly destroys that belief . If the
lodge of St . Paul possessed the right claimed by all lodges at the present day to receive into its membership all sorts and conditions of men , subject only lo the reservation in this resolution , why was it necessary to adopt and promulgate this resolution 1111703 ? That that lodge or assembly of persons
was composed mainly of Operative Masons must bc evident . Its name ofthe Lodge , or Builders' Company of St , Paul , betoken this ; and that they had been engaged on that erection . It was composed , ns well , of some few Accepted Masons ; and being thus composed , it is reasonable to believe that the
views entertained by the latter were not favourable to their further occupancy of so anomolous a position , nor to the continued existence of tbe lodge with their languishing and publicly discouraged condition , but that a new life and a better grip upon public sympathy and respect was , at least by them ,
earnestly desired . In its then operations there was nothing to command respect , and in this regard it was but the type ofthe other three , which , in common with it , assembled in taverns or drinking hostclrics ; there was nothing in its practice to win the favour of any but those of its members who ,
month after month , or mayhap at shorter periods , met as at a ' free and easy , ' to talk anel sing , lo eat and drink , and smoke tobacco ; and before its style or practice could bc changed , some radical measure by which accessions from among others than Operative Masons , stonecutters , and builders
could be gained must be legalised . Hence wc have the memorable act of the assembly at the Goose and Gridiron in St . Paul ' s Churchyard in 1 703 , and with it the birth of a society to be composed of all sorts and conditions of men , subject only lo certain reserved provisions , to bc known thenceforth by the name of FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS . ' '
I will not intrude further upon your space , but subscribe myself . Ycurs respectfully anel fraternally , AN AMERICAN FREEMASON . Buffalo , N . Y ., June 4 , if . 70 .
It is possible Preston copied the language of this sentence exactly ns il appeared upon ihe record of this lodge , but , in view of contemporary facts , \ vc must doubt . The word " Order" is one thai , ns applied to Freemasons , \ .-c believe- was then v . nkni . v . n , and its insertion here does noi tend lo slrenglhc !] the . ¦ eiitciwe in its nutirjuily even
when he- wrote 1 , threc-quaile-is of n eenluiy afterwards , but , on the- contrary , modernises il very much . Dr . Anderson , ill his ' I ' . i . ok of Constitutions , ' * first published in 1723 , makes no allusion in any part of his work lo an " Order , " nor uses ihal word once , 'i he word " Fraternity " nlu . 'c is used by him i-i speaking of Freemasons as a sodality .
Original Correspondence.
( To the Editor of The Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —I cannot help making a few remarks on Bro . Yarker's letter at page 296 , referring to the 1717 theory . He says : "The phase through which we are now passing arises in part from mistaken and illogical views as to universality , leading writers , for the sake of it , to
advance theories it is impossible they can believe themselves ; and in part from the admission by journalists of letters by writers upon a subject for which their education and knowledge unfit them . " May I ask Bro . Yarkev to give your readers the benefit ofthe logical reasons by which he has come to such a conclusion ? Because those who advocate
the side opposed to him might , for the same reason , say the same thing ; and it is ' well , for the elucidation of truth , that there are journalists who open their columns to writers whose views are opposed to each other . Anel it may bc observed that education assists those in the pursuit of knowledge who have intellectual power ; but it cannot give
faculties to the mind where the understanding is deficient . Neither ( and it is well for the poor ) does it require a college education to make a man of understanding . Further on , Bro . Yarker says : " I am not merely advocating my own opinions , but what I am also taught by High Grade Freemasonry , so much ridiculed and even so little understood by
its own members . " And , again , he says : " As our philosophical system is one of secrecy , let each be content with his own degree , without interfering with a superior step ; for it is only the perfected brother who is the true universalis ! , and the possessor of the key to all religious truth . " Docs this mean that High Grade -Masonry opens up a new
and an easier way to heaven , or a more comprehensive system of moral philosophy than is contained in the Holy Scriptures , which is open and free to all , and independent of the secret system of philosophy he boasts and thinks so much of ? As for his advice to " be content each with his own
degree , & c , " I hope no brother , black or white , initiated or uninitiated , will take any heed of it ; but let them use every effort to discover the hidden secrets of nature , and lay them open to all for the glory of God and the good of man . Yours fraternally , W . G . DORIC . P . S . —I would like to see a few extracts from writers or works , published before 1717 , proving the existence of Freemasonry . Assertions by writers of a latter date arc no proof . W . G . D .
ANTIQUITY OF FREEMASONRY . ( To the Editor of Ihe Freemason . ) DEAR SIR AND BROTHER , —The Masonic challenge which 1 threw down in your columns lately has been , unknown to me , copied out and published in many of the daily newspapers ; amongst others , it appeared in the Glasgow Evening Star and in
the Edinburgh Evening Couraut . Bro . Chalmers I . Paton observing this writes to both of these papers attacking my ideas ; but ; forgets to inform mc that he has done so . Consequently , I knew nothing of the matter until some time had elapsed . I consider this , under the circumstances , scarcely fair , or even manly ; to attack mc in an Edinburgh
paper was like firing at mc from behind a hedge . However , latterly , 1 saw both his letters , and replied to them ; and as you have afforded Bro . Paton an opportunity of ventilating his views in your columns , as per pp . 273 and 274 , perhaps you will be so kind as to give me a portion of your valuable space to show the answers which I gave to his unsupported statements , viz . : —
I beg to observe at the outset that Dio . Paton ' s letter is full of mistakes and misrepresentations . He may not he aware of this ; but such is in reality the case . As to the ' unquestionable fact that James II . of Scotland appointed the Karl of Orkney Grand Master of the Masons of Scotland , " thai is an nin / nestionable dream , and lhe very document he points to lo support this ' fact '
prove it lo be an untruth—ns I explain below . That the Masons were only common Craftsmen is clearly shown by the ' Burgh Records of Aberdeen , ' and such like really authentic works ; anil at the old trade processions it was the smiths and not the Masons who took the post of honour , each with the token of his Craft ou his breast . The old wrights and Masons were often classed together
while in the Act of King Henry VI . of EnglaneT anent the Masons , ihey are classed as 'labourers . ' In fact , since last . summer when , in the Freemason ' s Magazine , I asserted that Freemasonry , or Speculative -Masonry , was only 152 years old , I have been carrying on the war continually against all and sundry the supporters of the ' ancient antiquity'of Freemasonry , nnd I have never met one who could produce any substantial proof that onr
rrcemasonry existed he-fore 1717 . " I may here describe what Freemasonry is . There have been two kinds of Freemasonry . The Freemasonry of the fifteenth century , say , was lhe art of building houses , churches , etc ., of stone and lime . A Freemason then was a Mason free of his guild . The secrets they were to keep then were trade secrets ; and while there were Free Masons then , there were also free carpenters , free weavers , & c . ; and all the handicrafts were known as ' mysteries . '