"Origin Of Freemasonry," &C No. 2.

ancient manuscripts , and ] considered by many to have been the first authority in England as to their antiquity , and who was accepted as a most competent judge on the subject by the authorities of the British

Museum ) dates it " before the middle of the lyth century" just as Bro . Woodford does . There is no better judge at present mentioned among the several who have expressed their opinion . However , the question as to

the words and signs may safely be trusted to the evidence in print of A . D . 1686 , and the Harleian MS . No . 2054 . Should this not prove sufficient , we can produce other , if required . Now , as it is evident

signs were known and used by Masons before the " Revival , " and a number of the Fraternity met A . D . 1716 ( belonging to the ancient Institution ) , and restored and revived the lodges that were drooping , and ,

subsequently , other old lodges and members were received into the nezv organization or arrangementoi the ancient Society , what more natural than to conclude that the signs and words formed part of the nezv Ritual ?

Some of these brethren declare such to have been the case , and as they were men of position and influence , we surely must not doubt them without having evidence to the contrary . Remembering this , it should

not be forgotten that other lodges who did not participate in the Revival continued to work apart for some years , and their minutes read just as those of the other party . These have since joined the Grand Lodge ,

and no word has at any time been heard of any material differences in their mode of work . Indeed , with some lodges , it is absolutely impossible from the records to decide when such a union was consummated ,

so little did it affect the general conduct and arrangement of the lodge . It is also a fact that members of the Grand Lodge visited lodges which had not recognised them , and after being tested were admitted

duly , thereby shozving some basis on which they agreed , and about which there could be no mistake as to their actually being the

secrets of operative as well as speculative Freemasonry , the secrets not simply of the last century , but , most probably , for centuries . It should also be remembered that there

- are records of lodges prior to A . D . 1717 the members of which were gentlemen , and in no sense , at the time we speak of , was it an operative society , excepting as a preserver of the secrets of Freemasonry . One

of this class subsequently established a Grand Lodge of its own in England , and chartered lodges , and although it has now ceased to exist , when it was first started it ¦ met with great success ; and as a keen rivalry

and jealousy existed between it and the Grand Lodge of 1717 , for certain they would soon have exposed any attempt to foist on the Craft , degrees which were in no sense a continuation of the operative secrets

of former years . No complaint , however , is made by cither Grand Lodge from A . D . 1725 to 1790 of such an occurrence , although at times their hostility was bitter and most personal , and , hence , this

circumstance is of importance . I could multiply such instances if time permitted , but must rest contented with enunciating a principle for guiding inquirers as to the Revival , and the presentation of sufficient evidence to

prove the assertions made . It follows , then , from the foregoing facts and premises , that cur system of Freemasonry , although not in full the same as was wrought before the

Revival , at all events , " by legitimate succession and con ' tinuation of the old operative Assembly , " and by having ( as its promoters profess to have done , and facts warrant our believing them ) " carefully

"Origin Of Freemasonry," &C No. 2.

guarded the . secrets and traditions of the operative sodalities in England , " is the only representative of ancient Freemasonry as a secret society , and dates its organisation as a restored Institution from the " Revival of

1717 . " So that our system , though " now one of degrees , " which the ancient Society was not , yet they had throughout the first part of the last century so many points in common , that their actual similarity as to

some of the secrets is rendered almost absolutely certain from the evidence of the Records and published works which have been preserved to the present time ; and , therefore , Bro . Buchan cannot be justified

in so flatly denying any continuation or representation of ancient Masonry in the Revived Society of 1717 . I say it without any fear of contradiction by those who are familiar with the evidences accumulated on

the subject in my library , that were Bro . Buchan and me to sit down quietly for one evening , and submit the whole to a careful analysis , he would rise from their study

convinced that the Revival of 1717 was , in some degree , a continuation of the operative Freemasonry which its promoters actually belonged to , before that period . I say more . Bro . Buchan would admit it as

readily as he did the forgery of St . John s charter , provided he was convinced of his error . Proof'is what he wants and deserves ,

but as such has already been presented , although but fragmentary it is true , I still believe we will yet have him supporting the operative origin of Freemasonry .

( b ) Bro . Buchan next remarks , " No doubt certain extraordinary transactions in connection with the Masonic Body did take place in 1717 , but as these consisted in the introduction of something new and

extraneous , then it is a mistake to speak of them as a ' Revival of Freemasonry . '" I am astonished any reflecting Mason should make such a statement as the foregoing ! We do not know what was introduced A . D .

1717 , and all evidence accumulated decidedly points to a continuation of the old ceremonies , secrets , and customs , with a large increase of new ceremonies , and , subsequently , the division into degrees , & c .

Hence , for anyone to dogmatically ignore entirely the old secrets , and tostatepositivcly the so-called Revival was simply an entirely new organization , is , to say the least , wholly unwarrantable and opposed to the facts

already accumulated . I challenge any one to show a justification for such a statement as Bro . Buchan ' s . If he had kept to saying we do not know what secrets are old and what nezv , and that at the " Revival" we

cannot be sure as to how many were retained of the old customs , & c , one might easily have understood his position ; but , at present , he has decidedly committed himself to a statement which has not one iota

of evidence in its support , but , on the contrary , it is virtually demonstrated otherwise . I quite admit , with Bro . Buchan , that "our 1717 Freemasonry , was a construction on a new and different basis . " Who does not

admit this ? but surely it would not follow from this fact that the secrets of the operative fraternity , as also their customs , had no place in the ceremonies of the Revivalists ? The basis was different , certainly , because for the first time an actual Grand

Lodge was formed ( although assemblies j had been held before ) . As respects speculative lodges , they had existed prior to this , and there is plenty of evidence to warrant us in believing the " new basis " did not obliterate the traces of the more

ancient institution of Free and Accepted Masons of which modern Masonry is the lineal descendant and representative .

"Origin Of Freemasonry," &C No. 2.

( c ) Bro . Buchan ventures another dogmatic statement which he cannot prove , and for which he can furnish no reasonable excuse for making . " Masonic lodges in 1717 , " he says , " were not decaying , nor .

in many cases , until long after did what would cause such decay come into force . " We beg to remind him that , in England , the operative lodges were drooping early in the last century , and in the former century . As

a secret operative body , it was gradually dying out , and many lodges had decayed , as their documents which remain abundantly testify , and especially in London and neighbourhood the decaying spirit had been at

work . Hence the " Revival was anecessity , under the exigency of the circumstances , and the appropriateness of the term is at once palpable . ( d ) Bro . Buchan wishes to know what

" the great majority of Masonic authors believing in the Revival of 1716 or 1717 , " has to do with , proving it . I did not mention this fact to prove the " Revival , " but only as collateral evidence , in connection with

proofs submitted , why we should not consider it unreasonable to believe in the " Revival , " seeing that such a belief has been general until of late . Of course , they may believe in an error , but , on the other hand .

when considered with the evidence gathered from all parts of this country respecting the operative body , and its state about 1717 , all the respectable Masonic authors of the past fully accepting the Revival as a fact , should carry some little weight .

( c ) Bro . Buchan says "the question is—Is our Freemasonry either a revival or continuation of the fifteenth and sixteenth century Freemasonric ? " Why should the 17 th ( and early in the 18 th ) century be omitted ? I have shown it was a

continuation and revival of Freemasonry as existing early in the iSth and in the 17 th centuries , and the Freemasonry of that period was assuredly a continuation of that of the " fifteenth and sixteenth centuries , " so what can Bro . Buchan want more ? I do not

desire to show that " our Freemasonry was a continuation of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries , " if there zvere not a continuation of the society during the seventeenth and early part of the eighteenth centuries , but I am not aware any one as yet denies this fact

( f ) Bro . Buchan considers my statement that " These ancient lodges were speculative as well as operative " is "highly calculated to mislead ! ' Really , I doubt if an any one but Bro . Buchan has thought so , and should

like to hear from brethren on the subject . He says , " If these old pre-cighteenth century lodges zvere speculative , that of course they practised speculative Masonry . " That is so much to the point that I connot do

better than draw the attention 01 Masonic students to the question , " Of course they practised speculative Masonry" that is exactly what many of us contend for . As lodges were in existence before 1717 , and

as some of the members met as Masons , and were gentlemen , what else could they practise but speculative Masonry ? Surely they were not operatives ? The brethren at York ( England ) and Haughfoot ( Scotland ) ,

and elsewhere , who assembled as Masons anterior to the " Revival , " it must be conceded , were actually speculative Masons ; and what is more , it was the gradual introduction of the speculative element which

paved the way for the speculative G . Lodge of 1717 , but which clement at the same time , unless such a " Revival" had taken place .

was fast destroying the old operative body , and with it would soon have passed away . The " secrets" of Masonry were no longer essential to be known in order to learn the