Masonic Notes And Queries.

Masonic Notes and Queries .

SO CALLED " ANCIENT LANDMARKS . " Iii my communication headed "Bro . Hughan ' s Old Charges , " I hinted that Dr . Anderson first introduced " Ancient Landmarks " into the Masonic nomenclature . Since the above

was mailed , I have reperused the pre-1717 MSS ., and am now satisfied that my surmise was correct . [ could not find the word "Landmarks " either in Halliwell , Matthew Cooke , Dowland , or any other of the early MSS . that

have come under my notice ; and what is more the bretliren had no idea of Landmarks in olden time . Th . it tlie Operatives entertained no notion of Landmarks as for as their ritual was concerned ,

may be proved from the fact , that not only have they discarded " Moder . Vary Bright" from the invocation , the legend of tlie four martyrs from their history , and substituted a new batch of legends unknown to the author ofthe Halliwell

Poem , but they even substituted a new form of oath ( Harleian MS . No . 1942 ) . That they had no idea that Masonic laws , like those of " thc Medes and Persians , " were unalterable , can be equally proved from the language of the poem , thus : " They ordered tl . eir assembly to be held

every year wheresoever they would , to amend the faults if anywhere found . '' Besides which , the constitution in Halliwell ' s MS . contains fifteen articles and fifteen points , while the constitution in Bro . Cooke ' s MS . has but nine of each , and all the subsequent constitutions differ more or less .

Supposing , now , forthe sake of argument , that King Athelstan gave tlie Masons the first code of laws * I am , nevertheless , satisfied that all thc laws in Halliwell ' s MS . could not have been

sanctioned by Athelstan . For instance , Kin : * Athelstan was an illegitimate . The law in HalliweH " So lhat the prentes be of lawful blod , " would have been a direct insult to the king ' s parentage , and he never would have sanctioned it .

That the Operatives changed and altered their charges and laws may he seen hy comparing thc 7 th point in Halliwell ' s MS . with the 7 th point in Matthew Cooke ' s . Thus , the former , after forbidding intercourse with the Master ' s

wife , goes on- '' Ny by thy fellows concubyne , no more than thou wonkiest he dede by thyne ;" while in Cooke ' s M . S . the charges , " That he covet not the wife , nor tlie daug ht er oi" his master ' s , neither of his fellows , but if it be in

marriage , nor / told concubines , ¦ for tlie discord that might fall amongst them . " Writers who have painted ' * our ancient bretliren " as superior in morals , will be rather shocked to learn that concubinage was common amongst them , and that the subsequent prohibition thereof , did not

"rise from higher motives ol " religion or morality , but on account of the jealousies and discord which the system engendered among the brotherhood . But 1 am not now treating of the morals of the Operatives , but of a superstition engrafted on modern Masonry , viz ., "Landmarks , '' from which the the ancients were quite free .

I now come to the American Landmark of Landmarks , which , when abolished by the Grand Lodge of Kngland in 1 S 45 , brought forth such a torrent of invectives from our jurisprudence landmark sticklers—I mean the law of "free

born . " Assuming , now , for the sake of argument , that King Athelstan gave the identical fifteen articles and fifteen points in Halliwell ' s MS . to the Masons in 926 , and that those articles and points must for ever be regarded by

Masons as equal to those recorded in Holy Writ , the question will then be , whether the compound word of " free-born * ' can be found in Halliwell ' s MS . ? To this f answer in the negative . The poem merely says , " That he no bondman prentys make . "

Two . reasons are assigned for that law . Tlie first reason is , because the owner of the

bondman was entitled to take his bondman away wherever he found him * and he might even take him out of the lod ge ; and in that case the brethren might feel disposed to take sides with the unfortunate bondman , and would thus be

brought into collision with the law of the land . The second reason is based on the fable of the " Lord's children " that Euclid organized into the orginal fraternity . This , however , is too fanciful and frivolous to deserve notice . In

Matthew Cooke ' s MS ., written about a century after that of Halliwell , I find the phrase altered thus ; " That no master , for no profit , take no apprentice for to be learned , that is born of bond blood . " For which law , he gives substantially

the same reasons as the Halliwell MS . To make this perfectly clear , I herewith give the whole paragraph from Matthew Cooke ' s MS . : " That no master , for no profit , take no apprentice , for to be learned , that is born of bond blood , for

because of his lord , to whom he is bond , will take him as well he may from his heart and lead him with him out of the lodge , or out of his place that he worketh in * for his fellows peradventure , would help him , and debate for him ,

and thereof manslaughter might arise—it is forbiden . " Putting aside the second reason as worthless , it is evident that the main reason is not applicable to being born in bondage , but merely to the condition of bondage at thc period of

his apprenticeship . And as the author of Cooke ' s MS . furnishes no reason why he changed the phraseology , and admitting the theory of " irremovable Landmarks , " he had no right to

change the phrase under any circumstances . By substituting , therefore , the word " freemen " for "freeborn , " the Grand Lodge of England very properly restored the legitimate Ancient Landmark , instead of removing one .

The plain matter of fact , however , is , the Operative Masons had no notion of Landmarks . This , and many other notions , have been fastened on modern Masonry by learned dreamers , who , believing in . Anderson ' s history

of Freemasonry , and being puzzled about some phrases , forms , and usages retained or introduced by Anderson into his constitution , history , or ritual , set themselves to work to solve those riddles ; and imaghing that the man in the

moon wore a white apron and gloves on St . John ' s eve , the lunars were of course "Masonized . This may be deemed by my reader a little too far fetched , but in reality it is not more ridiculous than manv other theories .

Thus , Oliver seriously assures us that " God Himself communicated the secrets of Masonry to Adam in paradise . " Such being his belief , he began to seek for the early history of Freemasonry in the land of Shinar , the F . gyptian

Pyramids , the Old Dispensation , the New Dispensation , and in every other kind ol dispensation . Thus he and his like rambled among the Pagan mysteries , Christian mysteries , Templar mysteries , alchemists mysteries , and

all other kind of imaginary mysteries ; in short , they sought for information anywhere and everywhere , except in the right place . And being puzzled about the origin and reason of the law of " freeborn , " instead of seeking for

information 111 the old Masonic . MSS ., they rushed to Cruden ' s Concordance and finding there a reference to a passage , namely , " send away the bondwoman and her son , " they exclaimed , " Aha ! here we have it , freeborn , is certainly a

Masonic Landmark , because' Grand Master Abraham was commanded to send away the bondwoman" etc . With such dreamers for our guides , it is not surprizing that our fraternity is placed in a ridiculous position . Instead of

transmitting a true history , and a consistent system of Masonic philosophy , our historians were justly denounced by Hallam as mendacious . And as to our philosophy , what is it ? U Masons may lay claim to the idea of Landmarks ,

Universality ought to be deemed the landmark of Landmarks ! This universality is clearly defined in the earliest constitutions of modern Masonry , thus : " Masons are now only charged to adhere to that religion in which all men ag . ee ( leaving each brother to his own particular

opinions ) , that is , to be good men and true , men of honour and honesty , by whatever religious persuasion they may be distinguished . " But Masons now pretend to be more holy than their brethren , not because they are more honest , or more honourable , but because they are Knight Templars , and are illumined by

higher degrees , Christian degrees , and what not . * The principle of Masonic universality is further enjoined , thus : " we are of all nations , tongues , kindreds , and languages . " _ Thus teaching us to divest ourselves of the vanity and

conceit of race or country . But learned English brethren now set themselves to work to prove that the Anglo-Saxon race stands in higher favour with the G . A . O . T . U . than the Celtic and other races , because , Isaiah said something , and Micah something , and these

somethings and other somethings prove to their satisfaction that the Anglo-Saxons descended from the ten tribes of Israel ! Now I want to know how all this is compatible with our boasted universality ? What has Masonry to do with Knight Templars , or Christian

degrees ? Or what difference does it make to us , as Masons , whether a brother is a descendant of Shem , Ham , or Jap het ; no rational man will undertake to maintain that Celtic , Scotch and French intellect , has not conduced its share towards the advancement of

science , art , and philosophy . Why ! the very origin of modern Masonry is mainly indebted to men of Celtic birth . Anderson and Dessaguliers , the authors of the earliest constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England , were both of Celtic descent . But anyhow , Masonry

deals not with races or religionists , but with the characteristics of individuals . As long as a candidate believes in the universal religion—the religion in which all agree—and is a good man , and true , a man of honour and honesty , let his religion be what it may , let him be descended

from any race or kindred , hc is nevertheless fully entitled to receive the treatment of an equal and brother . To bolster up the superiority of certain religionists , nationalities , or races , over others , is certainly tending to sap the foundation of the whole Masomc system . Those brethren ,

therefore , who propagate notions tending to bring Masonry into conflict with religionists or races , are furthering anti-Masonic doctrines . And this brings me to another illustration of the result of those false teachings . In my review of Bro . William Sewell Gardner ' s

address on Henry Price , { Freemason , August 171 I 1 and 24 th , ) I proved that in 1 733 Price established an illegal lodge in Boston ; and that in 1752 some clandestine Masons established another lodge in Boston . Those lodges were subsequently legalized ; the former by the

appointment of Tomlinson by the G . M . of England in 173 6 , and the latter by a charter from the G . L . of Scotland in 1756 . In 1784 , Prince Hall , and other coloured Masons , petitioned for , and obtained from the G . L . of England a charter for the "African Lodge . " No

one then objected to the right ofthe G . L . of England to grant the said charter . The Masons of English origin had at that time taken no steps to declare themselves independent , and I have indubitable proof that the African Lodge was then repeatedly visited by white brethren .

In 1792 , the white Masons of English and Scotch origin united and formed the present G . L . of . Massachusetts , of which no formal notice was given to thc G . L . of Kngland . After that event , the African Lodge ( whose origin was certainly more legitimate than that of

either of the whites ) was tabooed by the white lords . After the death of Prince Hall , the Africans imitated the example of the Caucasians , that is , they set up a G . L . of their own . Many attempts have , however , been made by the coloured Masons to unite with the white , without avail . When the anti-slavery feeling

began to gain strength 111 the Northern States , enquiries began to be made in some of the Grand Lodges as to the origin and legality of the Negro organizations , and committees were appointed to investigate ; the result was , in one quarter , it was reported , that the Negroes did receive a charter at one time from the G . L . of

England , but that the G . L . ol Massachusetts afterwards cheated the Negroes out of it . Another report was circulated , that the Grand Lodge [* We be , ' to differ from our worthy "Brother , as we have not b . en able to discover any evidence of such questionable distinction on the part of Masonic Knights . ED . FA