The "Rectangular Review," On " Freemasonry : Its Use And Abuse."

principal intention of the article was to attack the active members of the committee of Boys' and Girls' Schools , and to charge them with a misapplication of the funds , " cannot be devised . They must , however , as the result of investigation , " return to plague the inventor . "

Angry at the exposure of injustice and unfairness , our worthy " Editor " says that I have " evidently forgotten the true Masonic secretsilence . " For his own reputation ' s sake , I would he had remembered it . Has he forgotten the

three great principles upon which , we are told , our Order is founded ? If so , let me remind him that of these the third is Truth . For myself , I would rather forget a secret than sacrifice a principle .

Let us now turn our attention to another section ( 13 ) of " Freemasonry : its Use and Abuse , " headed " Misapplication of Funds , " which commences thus : " As an instance of misapplication of money subscribed for educational and charitable purposes , and the arbitrary

and irresponsible action of committees , we may mention that , to our own personal knowledge , in the course of the present year very large sums have been awarded to artists , musicians , and other professionals , out of the funds which the donors certainly had no intention should be

applied to such a purpose . In one instance where the brother , unknown to fame , received several hundred pounds , the recipient ( notice the fact ) was himself a member of the committee that made the grant . " Well , here is language unmistakeably plain and vigorous—no hinting

an idea , or hesitating a suspicion ; but " mark how plain a tale shall set him down . " Not one shilling from "funds subscribed for educational and charitable purposes " has been awarded to " musicians and other professionals . " Such payments , as before observed , came from the

funds contributed by Stewards for festival purposes . To au artist , money has been paid from the funds of the Boys' and C »! . s Schools , and to this , of course , our " Editor" refers in his letter when he asks , " What right had these gentlemen to vote £ 240 for a purpose not

intended by the donors ? " and when he pleasingly states that , " It would be better for those who ' kissed the beauty' to pay for the pleasure out of their own pockets . " The basis for this , almost , vituperative indignation is this : Bro . B . Bond Cabbell—whose name is a household word

in the charitable world—held the office of Treasurer to' the Boys' School 2 2 years , from 1847 , and also to the Girls' School 30 years , from 1839 . I" 1 S 6 9 Bro . Cabbell resigned , having during the whole of his lengthy Masonic career taken an active interest in the

management of both Institutions , and having year by year been a liberal contributor to their funds . So highly were his services and generosity appreciated , that it was thought desirable to perpetuate their remembrance by placing a portrait in each Institution . The subject was

mooted in General Committee ( of which all Life-Governors are members ) considered , discussed at subsequent meetings until formal notice wasgiven , and published in the advertisement convening the Quarterly General Court ofthe whole ofthe Subscribers , which appeared in three daily papers ,

and in the Masonic publications . At the Quarterly Court of each school , a resolution sanctioning the necessary outlay , worded in deservedly complimentary terms , was unanimously adopted , and Bro . Rosenthal was commissioned to paint two portraits , full-length , of

life size . Bro . Rosenthal undertook the commission on the very reduced terms of 120 guineas for each portrait , and spontaneously offered to return out of this sum 50 guineas to the funds of each school , so that the outlay so strongly condemned amounts to the gross sum of 140

guineas , instead of . £ 240 . Bro . Cabbell , happily ' , still survives , and it would be bad taste to defend this expenditure by a public acknowledgment of his long and valuable services . Of the artist selected—the"brotherunknown to fame" —a few

words will not be out of place . Bro . Rosenthal , it is true , is one of hundreds who by virtue of their liberality have qualified themselves as members of the General Committee . He never took part in any discussion on the subject of the

The "Rectangular Review," On " Freemasonry : Its Use And Abuse."

portraits , and was proposed as the painter in his absence . So far from being " unknown to fame , " he has an extended reputation , and has received the patronage of crowned heads , his portraits being universally considered highly meritorious both as works of art and as faithful

embodiments ofthe "form and fashion" of those whose figures live and glow on his canvas . In justice to the Committee , as well as to Bro . Rosenthal , who has fallen under the editorial lash , I quote the following from the Illustrated Times , of 26 th October , 1867 : — " I have just paid a visit to

Red Lion-square to the studio of Mr . Rosenthal , one of the few portrait-painters whose ability has maintained the position of that branch of art in this country . Amongst several pictures remarkable for their faithful execution and marvellous finish , were portraits of Alderman Sir AVilliam

Rose , Alderman Lawrence , Karl Verner , the celebrated German artist , Mdlle . Titiens , Mdlle . Adelina Patti , and other celebrities . The great attraction , however , was the portrait ofthe Queen , which is about to be sent to India , where it will occupy a place in the Viceregal Palace . Her Majesty is represented in all the splendour of

her earlier years , seated on the throne , wearing the crown , and regally attired in a robe of white satin and a mantle of purple velvet . The brilliant colouring and exquisite finish of tbe picture cannot be surpassed ,- and its masterly treatment must enhance the reputation of the artist . "

Enough for the present . I am truly sorry to intrude at such length upon the pages of THE FREEMASON , but " the matter being Masonic and the subject charity , " and so much misrepresentation having been publicly disseminated ,

I cannot refrain from doing what in me lies to disabuse the minds of those to whom we have to appeal for sympathy and assistance , and who would feel themselves .. justified in withholding both were such statements as those under discussion allowed to pass unrefuted .

Origin Of Masonry.

ORIGIN OF MASONRY .

BY BRO . W . P . BUCHAN . The following remarks , & c , have been called forth by a perusal of the " Origin of Masonry , " written by Bro . G . W . Steinbrenner and published by Macoy and Sickels , of New York .

At page 16 , the author very sensibly says : — "Yet even at this day ( 1864 ) the most confused , absurd , and discordant opinions prevail regarding the origin of tlie Fraternity . In very many instances , Masonic authors , blinded by a foolish

vanity and by a desire of proving the vast antiquity of the Institution , have strenuously combated the idea that the Fraternity was derived from the operative masons , or have allowed themselves to be deceived and led into error by the

pecuharsymbolic representations and ceremonies of our present rituals , and their striking resemblance to those ofthe ancient mysteries . Instead of endeavouring to ascertain how and when these forms , symbols , and ceremonies were introduced

into our present system , they leap at once to the conclusion that these are derived directly from the religious mysteries ofthe ancients . Each fancied resemblance or agreement with some symbol or alleged custom of these ancient mysteries is

seized upon as a sure and reliable indication of a direct connection ; and , thus , they not unfrequcntly involve themselves in matters which have not the slightest bearing on the subject in question . "

Page 26 : " Nothing more can be understood- by its origin than that period when its principles were systematized and the Institution organised by mutual association . " Taking the author ' s view of the meaning of the word

" origin , " I would almost be inclined to say that our " present system " had its origin in London in A . D . 1717 . However , in order to save dispute as to the meaning of " origin" I put it that our " present system" was instituted and inaugurated in 1717 .

At page 29 he says : "Intelligent and impartial brethren place their reliance only on the authentic records and history of their Fra-

Origin Of Masonry.

ternity , and maintain that nursery tales must henceforth be confined to the nursery . " At page 33 he alludes to a work , " The Secret History of Freemasonry : London , 1725 , " and afterwards proceeds to analyse its evidence . At page 46 : " In comparing the social

organisation , customs , and doctrines of Freemasonry with those of the mediaeval building associations , we find indications of a close historical connection (?) existing between the two institutions . For example , we find that the following peculiar usages and customs were cqmmon to the

Fraternity of Freemasons of the present day and to that of the ' Steinmetzen '—stone-masons , stonecutters—of Germany . ( Why say ' of Germany ' par excellence 1 ) 1 . The division or classification of their members into Masters , Fellow-Crafts , and Apprentices . "

Now , before going any further , I object to the words " historical connection " being used , the reality being merely an intentional manufactured close resemblance in many things , especially in words ; and as for the old Masters , Fellow-Crafts , and Apprentices , these were different classes of

men , working together and mixing among each other , and with " secrets" common to all , whereas our Masterships , Fellow-Craftships , and Apprenticeships are simply degrees of initiation . In certain Scottish sixteenth-century statutes we read that Apprentices were bound to he present

at the admission of all Masters and Fellows ; hence , they would see whatever simple ceremony was done . He also asserts that " The form of opening and closing their assemblies " was the same among the old operative Masons as now among us ; as also that" The ritual of

initiation or reception into the Fraternity" was the same some centuries ago as now . Now , I deny both of these last assertions , and at least challenge proof . I am inclined to believe that the customs of the old ( in or before the sixteenth century ) masons at their meetings were merely

similar to those of other trades . 1 he opened box was generally the sign of the opened meeting , and the ceremony at the admission of new members very simple , and without any of the symbolic system manufactured when our present system was inaugurated in 1717 . However , a " book " was sometimes used before 1717 , when

females were admitted as well as men , which latter circumstance especially shows a similarity to other co-existing guilds or sodalities ; Pages 52 and 53 , about the old monks and their works , are worthy of much further elucidation and examination , so that what is said may be reliable , and our knowledge of the works of these , in many respects , worthy men extended .

At page ss he begins to give the Germans the credit of originating the Pointed Gothic , and of carrying it to perfection I but I am much afraid his views there anent are , to say the least , purely imaginary , and only to be excused upon the plea that the writer is himself a German , and

therefore wishes to hand over to his Fatherland the credit of whatever is great and good . The German Pointed Gothic was copied from France in the thirteenth century . And just as Germany copied Gothic Masonry from France in the thirteenth century , so did it copy or adopt

Speculative Masonry from England m the eighteenth , and in both instances to mar it . For as the great beauty of true Freemasonry is its universality , so the German Masonic statute which excludes the Jew is a great blot upon the Order . More especially , when we consider

what we all owe to the Jews . While the soil of Germany and England was trodden by rude and untutored men , the Jew was acting as the pioneer of the highest intellectual progress . More than three thousand years ago we find the Jew addressing the Great Architect ofthe Universe Himself ,

in language which is still unsurpassed for sublimity and beauty . While many of his neighbours worshipped the thing created . he addressed the Creator Himself . Both France and England were much ahead of Germany in that matter ,

then , and the remains of the Pointed Gothic of either is much superior to German . In fact , instead of Germans carrying the art to perfection , they degraded it They were first taugh the art by French workmen in the thirteenth century , and then did the very opposite of