Original Correspondence.

know of its existence until he was told by the officials of the Supreme Council of England , with a view to prevent him opening in New Zealand chapters and consistories in connection with the spurious Supreme Council of Scotland . I , however , have in my possession a letter ,

dated February 2 , 1 S 77 , from Brother John J . May , an - ifficc bearer in the English Rose Croix Chapter in question , in which he states that that chapter " was formally opened under warrant from the Supreme Council of 33 of Englanel on the 24 th day of last month . " This letter I am ready to exhibit , anel it conclusively verifies my

statement . Major Clerke is mistaken in saying that I hinted in my letter that his Supreme Council contemplated granting a warrant to form a Supreme Council in New Zealand . My letter did not contain any such statement , inferentially or otherwise . I need not reply to the opinion he expresses that I am

not 33 ° of any lawful Council . I will only assure him that I am . But this fact has no bearing on the questions at issue -, for I trust that the capacity to write a plain and truthful statement of facts is not exclusively confined to members of Supreme Councils . Yours fraternally , A

33-ALLEYN'S PLAYHOUSE . To the Editor of Ihe " Freemason . " Dear Sir anel Brother , — We have seen in your issue of the 20 th ult ., a paragraph to thc effect " that the old playhouse of Eelward AUeyn , the actor , anil founder of Dulivich College , supposed to be the first theatre established in London , is shortly to be

pulled down . It stands in Playhouse-yard , St Luke ' s , and as it is in a very dilapidated condition the owner intends to build on the site . " Will you kindly allow us to state the facts , so that the time of brethren with archaeological tastes may be saved . Thc undoubtce ! site of this old playhouse was for many years previous to 1872 a refuge , or casual ward , and in

that year we , as architects to the present lessee ( Mr . W . Barnard ) , pulleel down the dilapidated buileling anel erecteel a three-storey factory on tlie site . The work now proposeel is to rebuild the entrance to this factory only . There is not the slightest suggestion of the old playhouse rcmain ' msr . nor can there be any surprise at this , as in Maitland ' s History of London , published in the year

1772 , we find the building referred to in these terms : — "The first playhouse ( for aught I can learn ) that was erected in the neighbourhood of the City of London was situated between Whitecross-srteet and Golden-lane , in a place still denominated Playhouse-yard , where on thc north side are still to bc seen the ruins of that theatre . " We are , dear Sir and Brother , yours truly and fraternally , GORDON AND LOWTHER .

THE GENESIS OF SPECULATIVE FREEMASONRY . ( Continued . ) To Ihe Editor of Ihe "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — For the purpose of examining the hypothetical organisation of such a society as I imagineel in my last , let us for thc moment endeavour to divest our minds of

what I have ventured ti term the square and compasses notion ; let us , for the present at least , disrcgarel any possible connection of such an institution with Freemasonry operative or speculative , as we at present see its working displayed . Let us regard thc matter a priori . The chief necessity in a society so constituted would be the security of the personal safety of its members , and it is not difficult

to conceive that this prime desideratum would readily be sought by three devices . Firstly , the strict examination of a candidate for comradeship ; secondly , the invention and communication of a secret mode of recognition available everywhere and at any time ; thirdly , the establishment of a public feeling—an esprit de corps—in the mind of every member , of the duty of each one to surrender his life rather

than , by betraying his trust , endanger the safety of the rest . The reply to the question , why all this occult precaution , is almost the answer to the question so frequently propounded in the present day . If Freemasonry be so good a thing why have any secrets at all in it ? Why not throw it open to all thc world ? But we need not concern ourselves at present with the answer—and a very conclusive answer is familiar to all of us—to these queries as they now

present themselves . Sufficient for our purpose is it to evince that some such precautions as thc above were necessary to be adopted in the rude state of society I have been endeavouring to depict . A form of faith proscribed by the majority of mankind , conflicting with the interests , the profits , the pleasures , the favourite pursuits of thc most powerful classes—professed in an age when , as I have so frequently before insisted on , men . not even the faithful themselves , knew what toleration * meant—required as I

Original Correspondence.

think I have shewn , the most extreme vigilance and astuteness to preserve its professors , and thereby keep alight the fire of which they were the custodians . To proclaim reaely adhesion to an imperfectly understood creed was not sufficient , tlie emeriti ! must bc assured and convinced that thc neophyte was one , by entrusting the sccrcs of thc society to whom , thc safety of the rest would

not be imperilled . And secrets were necessary , for mutual recognition was indispensable , and the means of mutual recognition must be kept secret , for w <* re they not a-small—a tiny—body in a great mass , anil hael they not to guard against ti'ie cunning , the hypocrisy , thc lying tendencies , as prevalent at least in a barbarous as in a civilised state of society , though perhaps evinccel in a coarser fashion , that

were constantly lying in wait to entrap , destroy , and root them out ? If then I have rendered plausible the position that men so circumstanced would inevitably desiderate strict personal examination of the members they admitted to what they regarded as the privileges of their body , and if , on satisfaction that they were worthy to bc entrusted , they

conceived that it was necessary for mutual protection to confide to them certain means of recognition among the members of the human family foreign to their organisation , and if they , from apprehension of danger should those means be publicly known , thought it necessary for their common safety to render them secret under certain penalties for violation , I think it not unnaturally follows

that so ;* rie form of ceremony of admission would be devised where all this was to be performed . Perhaps it would be more accurate to say some ceremony would be adopted and some form invented . They would probably aelopt the principle of the ritual such as it was they saw performing around them . They would certainly invent the form best suited to the circumstances of their own

organisation . It is pretty clear that a ceremonial mode of adoption into the body of believers , with its correlative acquiescence , is common to every system of mythology , and in a very early stage of the world's history it is recorded how the profession — accepted from the mouth of vicarious speakers — was exacted

early in life . Of course , the most notable instance is the painful Hebrew rite practised since the days of Abraham , the combination undoubtedly of a sanitary precaution with a religious observance , but it is only with the ceremony in its latter lig ht that we are concerned now . Following Hebraism , Mahomet adopted the same method of affiliation ; the Christian Church—and for this purpose

we need make no distinction between the tenets of the Anglican and the Roman Church—employs the rite of baptism at an early age to secure the same object . But it is well worthy of observation , that in all these creeds the ceremony amounts to no more than a scaling , an aeloption , a setting apart , a period of probation , an affiliation , a vicarious profession . It is difficult to avoid trespassing

upon the domains of theology in examining the analogy between the admission of professing members of a hypothetical community in the early ages of the world ' s history and the customs of the Jewish and modern Churches on the like occasion , but I will endeavour to be , as it is my duty to endeavour to be , perfectly colourless anil neutral , anel therefore I will barely call the attention of the reader to

the fact that all Churches have considered that the ratification of aspiritual contract , necessarily vicariously made by an infant , as all sound systems of jurisprudence have consideredthe personal ratification of a temporal contract so made , was indispensable when the contractor arrived at the age of maturity , if it was sought to bind him to its performance . I am not familiar with the

ritual of the Jewish ceremony of circumcision , but I believe that the principle of a vicarious profession of the faith , analogous to the Christian provision of godfathers and godmothers , is there exacted from persons standing to the neophyte in the relation of sponsors I fancy too—though perhaps some Hebrew brother would kinelly enlighten me as to this—that in their ancient Church

a ceremony ee | uivalent to the Christian rite of confirmation is exacted as the condition of an admission to full Jewish privileges . As an illustration , though not of much value perhaps to this part of my contention , it will be remembered that Our Blessed Lord , * although in his infancy he had undergone the painful operation indispensable to His recognition by 1 lis Church . nevertheless alter attaining manhood

received baptism at the bands of John . It is not recorded whether he ever was personally received into the Israelitish faith on attaining the age of puberty , as I have assumed was the Hebrew custom . In the days of chivalry , when the institution of

knighthood copied much of the monastic usage m its practices , a period of probation , in which the propriety of the randielate ' s profession was guaranteed by sureties , had to be passed , and the alumnus served consecutively as page and esquire before he was deemed qualified ( except under very exceptional ' circumstances indeed ) to receive t he accolade and

Original Correspondence.

finel himself accounted worthy to be numbered among the fraternity . I need not allude to the guild system as adopting , the same practice of apprenticeship , and of course we are all familiar with thc gradual communication of full franchise in our three grades of speculative Freemasonry as practised at present , although in that practice must bc noted the important difference that we have no vicarious , no

infantine affiliation . Thc recruit must be mature , free , able to judge and to pledge for himself . Such I must believe to have been thc case in the primitive germ—if a germ it be—of speculative Freemasonry , as I have imagined and tried to depict it . Children would have been ineligible for such a community , as would women . The members would of course , many of

them , " nave possessed wives and been the fathers of children , and those children , such of them as were males , they would doubtlessly desire to devote to the service of the brotherhood when old enough to be of service to it—and we may get rid of our modern notion of a sort of heaven-sent maturity at the age of twenty-one years , as an arbitrary arrangement established , and wholesomely established , at a much later period

than that we are now considering , solely for the sake of convenience—these early believers were not in a condition to keep more cats than would catch mice ; the alumni they wanted were those who would add to their immediate strength , surrounded , as they were , with enemies and dangers . I need not dilate upon this proposition . The reflective mind may detect in it some connection

between the Oriental and the Masonic exclusion of women from religious communion , and the restriction of privileges by the latter to candidates of mature age , sound judgment and free from disabling controlling influences . I have supposed , then , that the adult candidate for th communion of the faithful was examined and entrusted at e a ceremonial meeting equivalent to the Jewish

circumcision or the Christian baptism , but I am inclined to think that , if this were so , the admission was , in those days , completed in one ceremony ; wholly accomplished on one occasion . I fancy thc comparatively modern system of probation grew up , or was invented , as society became more artificial , anel perhaps was adopted in what was conceived to be wholesome imitation of , a deference to , or the

fashion observed in the so-called religious customs of the exoteric world . The more probable opinion , however , is that it was an imitation of thc guild system—using that word in its broadest sense , and in no way restraining myself within the narrow limits in which it is employed by Anderson—that , as society progressed and arts and manufactures increased , and it became an absolute

necessity that artificers should take pupils for the purpose of instructing them in their handicrafts , in oreler duly to qualify them for thc privilege of working independently , religion followed tbe secular practice , and its professors founel it necessary to train their alumni and to keep their designated successors for a certain time in statu pnpillari , as secular toilers did theirs .

But at the early period of the history of society , from the contemplation of which we have not yet escaped , this example had not been set , and even if it had been set , the necessity of following it had not been rendered manifest . We have to focus ' our view on an esoteric body of men , recruiting their numbers from the exoteric world , and for

safety sake inaugurating the accession of a brother with a certain observance , the probable nature of which I will proceed to consider , so fir as I can do so with propriety in the columns of a public journal , in my next . Yours faithfully , S . P ., P . M . 002 , 1401 .

THE LATE BRO . LITTLE . To the Editor ofthe " Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — Wc have read the letter of Bro . Irwin in your last week ' s issue , and give him the fullest credit for the affectionate regard evinccel by him for the memory of our lately deceased friend , Bro . R . Wentworth Little , and the

kindness and sympithy expressed on behalf of his bereaved widow , and write to say that it is not contemplated to m ake any appeal to the Craft for her assistance , as , although she cannot be said to be in affluent circumstances , she has , nevertheless , sufficient , we hope , with care and economy , to supply her wants . There is also his aged mother , who during his lifetime was dependent on him for

support , and for whom he has made a slight provision , which will , of course , reduce the willow ' s income . Bro . Little ' s expenses during his long illness were heavy , and he had not enjoyed thc emoluments of his office sufficiently long to enable him to save much .

We may mention that it has been proposed by some of the brethren with whom Bro . Little was more intimately associateei , that a meeting should be called shortly to arrange some manner of perpetuating his memory by the erection of a stone over his grave , and in any further way that may meet with thc approval of the brethren and the

widow . We remain , yours fraternally , WM . DODD , *) Executors of the late A . A . PENDLEBURY , j Bro . R . W . Little .

A CORRECTION . To the Editor of the "Freemason . " Dear Sir and Brother , — Will you afford me space in your journal to correct an error which inadvertently appeared in thc

announcement 01 the names of Stewards anel amounts collected by them at the last festival of the Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution . It is there stated that Bro . Farmaner , W . M . of the Old King ' s Arms Lodge , No . 28 , did not serve as Steward , whereas the contrary ia thc fact , he having very kindly acceptcel thc position for the second time . I should bc exceedingly sorry if , through any inaelvert-