Free And Freemasonry.

silence as to the objects , nature , customs , and work of the Institution is significant . There was something //; the Institution , that made it seem to him worth his while to join it ; and what was in it then may have been in it centuries before . " ( July 22 nd , 18 S 9 ) * * * * » For a full explanation of what may be called in general terms , " the Rosicrucian Theory with regard to Freemasonry , " the works and fugitive

writings of a vast number of persons would have to be consulted . I have myself treated the subject at considerable length in my History of Freemasonry ( chap . XIII . ) , where the leading references will be found collected ; and very masterly papers entitled " Freemasonry and Hermeticism " ( by the Rev . A . F . A . Woodford ) , and " Rosicrucians , their History and

Aims " ( by Bro . W . Wynn Westcott ) have been read before the Lodge of the Quatuor Coronati ( A . Q . C . i . 28 , vii . 36 ) . Also , I must not forget to mention that at the hands of German writers , a Rosicrucian theory of Masonic origin or development , has passed through quite a multitude of p hases , and is still stoutly upheld by brethren of "light and leading" in the Fatherland . .

Not , however , to take up too much space , with what , after ^ all , is merely introductory to a study of Bro . Speth ' s paper , I shall quote from no further commentator on the history—legendary or otherwise—of the Rosicrucians , and proceed at once to indicate the " points " dwelt upon by Albert Pike , which are material to the inquiry we are about to pursue . It will be seen that he claims ( 1 ) for the Hermetic philosophers , a prior possession of much

of the Symbolism now the property of the Freemasons ; . and ( 2 ) that he refuses to believe in the possession at any time by the working Masons of any symbols of the same class . To the first contention , it has been replied , that the Hermeticists or Rosicrucians are not known to have practised themselves any mystic or symbolical ceremonies which they could have passed on to the Freemasons ( A . Q . C . iii . 22 ); and with respect to the second , let us now examine how

far it remains unshattered after the publication of the counter-theory of Bro . Speth . But before doing this , I shall interject a few words from one of our Bro . Crawley's latest essays which seem to offer themselves properly in this place : — " The fact that Ashmole , being a Freemason , was also a Mystic has given rise to the theory that he may have formed a link between the Rosicrucians and the Freemasons . This theory rests on a series of

postulates , and may be passed over till proofs are forthcoming { A . Q . C , XL 5 ) . The principle laid down is a sound one , and what the writer of the essay has laid down as a rule of action to be observed with respect to the claims of the Rosicrucians , will equally hold good when applied to the claims of the Freemasons .

[ ABRIDGED FROM "A TENTATIVE ENauiRY , " BY BRO . G . W . SFETII . ] The cathedral ( or church ) builders were a separate class from the masons of the City guilds or companies . The Manuscript Constitutions belonged to the church-building masons . The Accepted Masons derived from the church builders , rather than from

the guild masons . The church builders were one fraternity , co-extensive with England at least , even if they did not at first include Scotland and Ireland also . A mason travelling from , say , York to Canterbury , was immediately recognised and treated as a fellow , a co-member of the fraternity . If his indenture existed in writing , which is doubtful , it might be miles away , so

he had means to establish not only that he was at one time an apprentice to the craft , but also that he had served his full time , and had been passed a master of the craft . This he was enabled to do by secret grips , tokens , and signs . There were two degrees , those of Apprentice and Fellow Craft , and a ceremony of some sort took place when each of them was conferred . — ( A . Q . C , X ., 16 et seqq . )

This state of affairs , in the opinion of Bro . Speth , predated any known guild of Masons in the kingdom , and I think I shall be justified in assuming that the chief authority upon which he relies for the maintenance of his theory as a whole , is the final portion of the Matthew Cooke MS . ( Addl . MS ., 23 , 198 , Brit . Mits . Lib . ) , as dating "in its transcription , though not in its origin , from about AD . 1400 , " and the evidential value of this document will form the subject of our next study .

III . We see on our shelves , in handsome Volumes , the Works of old Authors who lived and wrote before the invention of printing ; but how few of us usk ourselves the questions : Where are the originals of which these books

"re the copies ? And what authority have we for the genitinenrss of the text . ' —WILLIAM FORSYTH . / see no answer to the argument , that one has no right to pick out of an '' I'vious'y unhistorical statement the assertions which happen to be probable , and to discard the rest . —T . H . HUXLEY .

The Manuscript Constituticns are supposed to contain the codes of regulations in use among the church builders of the Middle Ages , but they are not referred to in any way by the writers of that period , nor do wa meet

with any independent testimony with respect to them until the 17 th century was well advanced , or , in other words , until long after the publication of the ' ama Fraternitatis , with which is ordinarily associated the development of 'he Rosicrucian mania , which set in at about A . D . 1610 —14 .

" A large parchment volmii , containing the History and Rules of the Craft of Masonry , " is mentioned by Dr . Plot in the " Natural History of Staffordshire , " 1686 , but a criticism of his " Account of the Freemasons " as there related , lies beyond the scope of my present purpose . The Points on which I want to dwell at the present stage are ( 1 ) that the ¦ t ... „ . fe . U . S . 1 1 UW

> . % — - " « .. V — w ., w .. „ ..... ^ . v . ^ H b w ^ J ... V .. V . ^ lanu cript Constitutions of the Masonic Fraternity , are nowhere referred to " 1 any independent testimony of prior dale to the appearance on the scene 01 those hermetical philosophers rtferred to by Albert Pike , and the " conveyance " of whose " Symbols " into Fieemasonry constitutes the " Rosif

ucian theory , " of which there are so many supporters , and among them r . Begemann , one of the most profound Masonic scholars of this or any other age . tli . , 5 ' to the Manuscript Constitutions , there is nothing to show r at eitfier in the sixteenth or the fifteenth centuries , or earlier , the codes of Eulations contained in these venerable documents fulfilled any more useful

Free And Freemasonry.

purpose than the several versions of the " Legend of the Craft , " of which , in all copies of the M . C . they form a part . Our accounts of these codes of regulations are , indeed , only traditionary , and we cannot trust those echoes of the past , the early " History" or written

traditions of . the Freemasons . Unless machinery is seen at work it is not possible t ) judge of its results . Equally hard is it to form a judgment of the operation of the Masonic system of government in the middle ages , from the dry statements which successive copyists of the Manuscript Constitutions have preserved or invented .

Moreover ( to adopt the words of Professor Goldvvin Smith ) , " It is a rule of criticism that we cannot by any critical alembic , extract materials for history out of fable . If the details of a story are fabulous , so is the whole . Devices for meeting such difficulties , may be found , but they are devices and not solutions . So long as anything miraculous is left the difficulty of proof remains" ( Essays , 56 , 108 , and 163 ) .

Now it is the essence of the code ofjregulations on which our Bro . Speth so much relies , that there was an " Assembly" or Masonic parliament which was in full swing from some unknown period down to , and perhaps , after the 15 th century . The masons , according to the " Constitutions , " were only obliged to go up to the Assembly when they received any warning . But from whom was

the warning to proceed 1 The meeting , if it took place at all , must have been convened by some person or persons , and who could they have been ? In other words , there must have been a sort of head-quarter staff somewhat resembling that of a modern trades-union . Yet we are asked to believe , not only in the existence of so remarkable an organisation , but also to carry

our faith to the extreme point of supposing that the legal writers , commentators , annalists , and antiquarians , from Chief Justice Glanvill downwards , together with the vast array of ancient records , have passed over in utter silence , the extraordinary privilege thus enjoyed by the Masons , and possessed by no other trade , which must have been common knowledge while the custom lasted .

It has , indeed , been suggested by Bro . Speth , that instead of there being one General Assembly of Masons for the whole kingdom , there were several , but this supposition would appear to be by a long way the least tenable of the two . It seems to me quite incredible that one such Assembly could have

been held yearly ( or triennially , ) without some trustworthy record of the circumstance descending to us , and , therefore , the holding of a score of them ( let us say ) in different parts of the country would , in my judgment , have been at least twenty times as miraculous ( if the expression may be allowed to pass ) , as the alleged custom of meeting in one body , which I have criticised at greater length .

What the Assembly really was , that we find so constantly alluded to in the Manuscript Constitutions , is a question which would involve a protracted study of the legal and judicial procedure of the Middle Ages —but it may be shortly stated , that the unions of the trades and Crafts in towns met in what were styled General , or Common Assemblies , both of which terms occur in the Masonic Constitutions , though the words

" Common Assembly" are very unusual and are only to be found in what are called the "Hope" and " York No . 4 " MSS . There is no doubt whatever that to the governing body of the borough , the trade association was a mere matter of public convenience , and was so little regarded as depending on the free will of the craft itself , that it was frequently founded by order of the town and was invariably compelled to make submission to

superior force and receive orders from its master the municipality ( J . R . Green , Town Life in the Fifteenth Century i . 135 ) . It is not likely that the masons and carpenters should have volunteered to take oath before the Mayor and Aldermen that they would do their duty in their trade ( Lib . cits . 100 ); or that the masons should themselves propose that if a mason failed to fulfil his contract , certain men of his trade who acted on his securities should be bound to finish his task ( Riley , Memorials , 280-82 ) .

" Men who offended against the rules of the trade were brought before the town officers for punishmsnt . Even the wandering artisans who moved from place to place , who had no fixed shops and no complete guild organization , found themselves subjected to the town authorities as soon as they had crossed the borders of the borough " ( Green , i . 151 ) . The suggestion might therefore be made that the General Assemblies specified in the Manuscript Constitutions were really those of the associated trades in the towns ?

But there is another , and as it seems to me a preferable hypothesis . Except in London , certainly down to the time of Edward I ., the Sheriff and County Court still reviewed the jurisdiction of the town , and even much later , the supervision of the Sheriff extended over many towns . Also , the clause in the " Constitutions " naming the radius within which attendance at the Assembly was compulsory , would be meaningless , if we can suDDOse

that the " Charge " was addressed solely to residents in the towns . We are told in the Mirror of Justices ( A . D . 1285-90 ) : " The Sheriffs , by ancient ordinance , hold General Assemblies twice a year in each hundred , whither all fee tenants within the hundred are bound to come" ( chap . XVI . ) . That the masons were not exempt from attendance and service at the

Court Leet or the Sheriff ' s Tourn , when a View of Frank pledge took place is quite clear , and an instance of a special jury consisting of masons and carpenters , in connection with the proceedings of a Court Leet , is given in the IXth Volume of the Historical MS . Commission , p . 169 . To this , of course , it may be replied that the masons in question were not of the church-building class—conceding for the moment , that there may have been two divisions of the Masons' trade—but if the very abundant evidence

on the subject is consulted , and particularly the publications of the Selden Society , many examples will be found where the right of the Bishop ( whose authority over the church-building masons might almost be implied ) to hold a Court Leet and View of Frankpledge , was disputed by the Town . A case of the kind is cited by the Rev . F . Bloomefield , and , although the Judges of the King ' s Court decided in favour of the Bishop in 1352 , the quarrel was still going on in 1473 ( Topographical History of Norfolk , iii .,

5 ' 3 ) . . ' But the chief point on which I wish to lay stress , is the extreme improbability ( to put it no higher ) that the masons , at any time , could have had , so to speak , a parliament of their own . There is nothing whatever to point in that direction outside of the Manuscript Constitutions , and , in order that we may obtain a glimpse of what would pass through the mind of any critical historian of the modern school , if he were asked to believe in the existence of such a phenomenon , I shall adduce the following : " The critic is one who , when he lights on an interesting statement ; begins by suspecting it . He remains in suspense until he has subjected his