Masonic History.

MASONIC HISTORY .

ROBERT FREKE GOULD . In the Freemason of February 12 th , I drew attention to the statement in Findel ' s History , that " Messrs . King , Calvert , Lumley , Madden , " & c , headed by Dr . Desaguliers , " established the first Grand Lodge , " and I traced the origin of this assumption to a foot-note in Dennett ' s Ahiman

Rezon . The foot-note referred to runs as follows : "Brother Thomas Grinsell , a man of great veracity . ' . informed his lod ^ e . - . in 1753 , that eig ht persons , whose names were Desaguliers , Gofton , King , Calvert , Lumley , Madden , De Noyer , and Vradcn , were the geniuses to whom the world is indebted for the memorable invention of Modern

Alasonry . " I will now introduce a ' short extract from Anderson ' s Constitutions of 1738 . At page 137 of this work we read : "On 5 th Nov ., 1737 , an occasional lodge was held at the Prince of Wales Palace of Ivew , near Richmond , viz . r " The Rev . Dr . Desaguliers ( formerly Grand . Master ) | $ nstCX" of this lodge

Mr . William Gofton , Attorney-at-Law , Senior ( Grand \ Mr . Erasmus King , Mathematician , Junior I Wardens 5 The Rig ht Hon . Charles Calvert , Earl of Baltimore , the Hon . Colonel James Lumley , the Hon . Major Madden , Mr . De Noyer , Mr . Vraden , and when formed and tiled , " His Royal Hig hness FREDERICK Prince of Wales was in the usual

manner introduced and made an Enter d Prentice and Fello-w Craft . It appears , therefore , that Mr . Thomas Grinsell ( of whose " great veracity " the Grand Secretary of the " Ancients " has given rather an unfortunate illustration ) , cited the brethren who formed the lodge at which the Prince of Wales was admitted in 1737 , as the authors of the revival in 1717 : that Dermott was not sufficiently acquainted with the Constitutions of the " Moderns " to detect the anachronism : and lhat our learned Bro . Findel—in

this instance , at least—posed as a disciple of the " Sheepwalking " School , by blindly following in the footsteps of his erring predecessors , the historians of the past . Without laying undue stress on trifles—and yet , according to my view , all inaccuracies , however trifling , ought to be exposed—I may be permitted to point but , that the extracts given above fully sustain the observation with which I commenced this series of articles , viz ., " that before the speculations

of Bros . Hughan and Whytehead in regard to the early proceedings of the Grand Lodge of England can be adequately discussed , the ground must be first cleared of much accumulated error . " Since my citation from the pages of the Masonic Eclectic was given in the Freemason , I have received from Bro . S . D . Nickerson ( P . G . M . Massachusetts ) the December number , 1 S 60 , of that work ( No . 4 , Vol . I . ) . At page 89 , under the

heading—DESAGULIERS . By the Latomia Society of Atlantic Lodge , Appears the article to which I called attention in the Freemason of February 26 th . Great stress is laid on the coincidence of the Grand Lodgeof England having been formed in 1717 , the year of Desagulier ' s removal to London [ from Westminster ] .

I have shown { Freemason , February 26 th ) that the Doctor was still resident at Westminster in 171 S , though whether living at London or Westminster matters very little . Commenting upon one of the Ancient Charges , the writer continues : "Do wenotsee in this passage the expression of the philosopher , of the thinking man , who , even as a child , had suffered on account of his religious opinions . " But , with all due respect for the " Latomia

Society of Atlantic Lodge , unless gifted with a singular precocity , Desaguliers' sufferings could not have been very acute , since he was only two years oi age , when the revocation of the Edict of Nantes caused his father ' s removal to England . The death of the learned natural philosopher occurred on February 29 th , 1744 , and not , as stated , in the Masonic Eclectic , in 1 743 . Passing from the last subject , to the strictures of " Masonic Student " in

the Freemason of the 5 th inst ., I think that upon the question of Degrees my commentator has slightly misapprehended the tenour of my argument . It is the belief of Bros . Findel , Lyon , and Hughan , that only one ceremony was in vogue up to , say , the end of the seventeenth century , whilst it admits of no doubt that there were three ceremonies in 1723 . Adopting , as I do , the general view of Degrees , sanctioned by the authority of these respectable

names , it matters very little , so far as the main contention is concerned , whether thc Degrees of E . A ., F . C , and M . M ., as we now ( perhaps ) have them , were arranged in 1700-23 , or in 1717-23 . In either case , within the limit of , comparatively speaking , a very few years , thp ceremonies or modes of reception incidental to the different Grades , were extended at least so Bros . Findel , Lyon , and Hughan assert , and I ,

for one , concur in such opinion . 1 think that post-revival Masonry was an amplification of / inr-revival Masonry , and whether the added forms of reception were introduced in the ist , 2 nd , or in the 3 rd decades of the eighteenth century , seems to mc a point of no very great importance . Taking a broad view of matters , we find that short !) ' after the formation of the Grand Lodge ( 1717 ) 1 the control of the Society had passed into the hands of sundry

non-operatives . Contemporaneousl y with this , we also find that three separate Degrees or ceremonies are for the first time unequivocall y mentioned . It appears to me , therefore , that the rule of the Speculatives , and the added forms of reception , represent cause and effect . To guard myself from being misunderstood , I may briefly state , that the contention I uphold , is not so much that secrets were added , as that

whatever pre-revival secrets existed , were imparted to Apprentices equally with Fellow Crafts and Masters . It may well have been ( I express no opinion for or against ) that the Scottish mode of reception constituted a balder ceremony than prevailed in England . Still , the fact is indubitable , that in the sister-kingdom the presence of Apprentices , wasessential to the legal constitution of meetings for thc admission of Masters and Fellows .

In conclusion I ask " Masonic Student to again look at my article No . 2 of this series at page 92 , ante . I there state : — "This article having run to a greater length than I had intended , I will very briefly record my opinion , that during the six years , 1717-23 , the system of Masonry formulated in 1723 was doubtless arranged . "

1 believe my worthy friend will accord to me the courage of my opinions . However wrong-headed I may be , I always seek , at least , to exercise an independent judgment upon disputed points . The question of Degrees is a very puzzling one , and cannot be briefl y discussed , though an opinion may be briefly re co riled . At some future date I intend handling this difficult subject , and meantime I disclaim all idea or intention of " practically and dog-

Masonic History.

maticall y settling" ( as my friend puts it ) what is admittedly a vexataqucestio amongst Masonic Students , and , indeed , any other point or question upon which I may hereafter express my views .

"Long Livers."

"LONG LIVERS . "

T . B . WHYTEHEAD . Critical papers , such as those of Bro . Gould , "Masonic Student , " Bro . Hughan , and others , cannot fail to do much for the history of Freemasonry and in attracting to this interesting study the attention of able brethren . Wliat we all aim at is to sweep away the cobwebs which generations of

Masonic writers have hung over the salient points of Masonic history , to perm . it established facts to stand out in relief , and , if possible , to fill up the numerous remaining gaps by legitimate conclusions . The danger is that our iconoclastic and remorseless broom may destroy in its determined path those faint clues , without which we cannot hope to establish our historical

connection . Bro . Gould ' s notes on " Long Livers , " last week , are most interesting , and it appears tro me that it may be worth our while to refer to that work in greater detail , in order to give Masonic enquirers a better opportunity for criticism and comment . If , therefore , you will permit me the space , I propose to examine the dedicatory essay of that work , and to weigli its value

as far as regards its testimony to the connection between Freemasonry and the occult societies of that day , as also to the existence of Grades in Freemasonry during the earliest portion of the ei ghteenth century . In order to do this it will be necessary to quote from the work itself , as I may fairl y presume that comparativel y few of your readers have seen the book . The essay itself purports to be a history of persons who have lived to a

great age , and to have grown young again , and in communicating the " rare secret of Rejuvenescency , " the author affords such marvellously compounded recipes as would drive a modern dispensing chemist stark mad , but it is with the dedication of the book that we have to deal , and this dedication occupies about a fourth part of the entire volume . It opens as follows r " To the Grand Master , Masters , Wardens , and Brethren of thc Most

Ancient and Most Honourable Fraternity of the Freemasons of Great Britain and Ireland , " and the author says , " I address myself to you after this manner because it is the true language of the Brotherhood , and which the Primitive Christian Brethren , as well as those who were from the beginning , made use of ; " and then he goes on to say , "I present you with the following sheets , as belonging more properly to you than any else . " From

these expressions I would be disposed to gather that the writer did not regard the Freemasons as a lineal continuation of any society of alchemists , or astrologers , or Rosicrucians , but rather as the natural successors to some such defunct body , of which the writer had himself been a member . But , on the other hand , in the same page from which I have quoted he says , " I , therefore , my dearest brethren , greet you most heartilyand am

, glad of this opportunity to rejoice with you , inasmuch as it hath pleased the Almighty , One , Eternal , Unalterable God , to send out His Light , and His Truth , and His Vivif ying S p irit , whereby the Brotherhood begins to revive again in this our isle , and Princes seek to be of this Sacred Society for since God , my dearest Brethren , be for us who can be against us ? "

It is remarkable that several of these phrases and expressions were in common use amongst the old Rosicrucian writers , and it is clear that the author here identifies himself with Freemasonry , as well as Freemasonry with some society which had fallen into disuetude or disrepute , but was in process of revival .

then , again , he says , " I shall use that Liberty and Freedom which is our essential difference , richly distinguishes us from all others , and is , indeed , thc very Soul and Spirit of the Brotherhood . " Nothing can be plainer than that * 'Philalethes" regarded himself as one of the Order . Again , in the 6 th page , he says , " Do not imagine I set up for a Rabbi , Master , or Instructor , who am one of the least of ) 'ou . " In two separate places the author refers to some kind of rank or degree of

knowledge in thc Order . On page 5 he says , " By what I here say those of you who are not far illuminated , who stand in the outward place , and are not worthy to look behind the veil , may find no disagreeable or unprofitable entertainment ; and those who are so happy as to have greater light will discover , " far . Again , in page 49 , he uses the phrase quoted b y Bro . Gould— " And now , my brethren , you of the higher class , " far .

Ihe question seems to be—What does he mean by " Higher Class " and "Greater Light ? " Taken in connection with a mention , which he makes further on , of " the Spiritual Celestial Cube , " in which some Masons will recognise a pointed

allusion to a well-known " High Grade " emblem , is it possible that he refers to a system of Christian Masonry practised at that period ( 1722 ) ? The author himself mixes up Christianity with his Masonry in the most systematic manner , despite his own recommendation to his readers to avoid Reli gion and Politics .

The whole tone of thc address is exceedingly high-flown and extravagant , but in this respect the author resembles many writers of his day , and most of the occult essayists wrote after a similar fashion . He appropriates numerous Biblical expressions , one especially to which Bro . Gould calls attention , in which he follows " Hol y Brother St . Paul , " as he calls him , when he says " I speak as a fool . " This is simply St . Paul ' s

own phrase ( twice repeated ) , " aphrosune lego " and " paraphronon lalo , " and is merely an exaggerated expression of apologetic humility . We know , from Ashmole ' s diary , that there was an Astrological Society in existence at the close of the seventeenth century , and that Rosicrucian lore was studied by several men of education at that time ; and from the same source

we arc aware that Speculative Freemasonry then existed as a distinct Institution . " Philalethes , " whose real name was Thomas Vaughan , was a Mystic , and claims tlie Freemasons as brethren . Arc we , then , in any way justified in deducing thc inference that Speculative Freemasonry had its origin , or was in any way mixed up with the old Rosicrucians or their followers 1

Among the pictures sent to the Royal Academy is Mr . Comlcy Vivian ' s portrait group of the ' sons of Bro . J . C . Parkinson . Bro . Lord Bective , P . G . M . Cumberland and Westmorland , nnd Lady Bective , who have left Algeirs tor Tu nis , are not expected to return home till the middle of May . Bro . Cordingley , of the West London Advertiser , was installed W . M , of the Strong Man Lodge , No . 45 , on Thursday last ,