Mr. Heckethorn's Opinion Of Freemasons And Freemasonry.

Listen attentively , all ye sturdy and loyal Freemasons , to Mr . Heckethorn ' s happy representation of your feelings , your motives , your proceedings as attached members of the Craft . Page 3 S 9 , vol . I . " Selfishness , an eye to business , vanity , frivolity , gluttony , and a love of

mystery mongering , concealed under the pretence of brotherly love and a longing for instruction , these are the motives which lead men into the lodge . " Is this statement true ? We reply with the poet , and with a young lady , " emphatically no . " As far as our experience of our

Order goes , and it is somewhat extended now , ranging over many lustra , we do not hesitate to affirm , that no more unfounded assertion ever was made by even the most ignorant of cowans . Has Mr . Heckethorn ever heard of the Boys ' and the Girls' School , or the Royal Masonic

Benevolent Institution ? Does he know anything of the large sums of money we annually grant in charitable aid to the decayed , or aged , or suffering of our Order ? We hope not , and surely in his case , we may all say with much unction , ' •Where ignorance is bliss , ' twere folly to be wise . " Passing over this libel on our kindly and

friendly brotherhood , let us take another equally startling passage : " The facility and frequency with which worthless characters are received into the Order , the manner in which all its statutes are disregarded , the dislike which any brother who insists on reform is looked on by the rest , the introduction of many spurious rites , the deceptiveness of the rites themselves .

. - . the puerility of the symbolism ... all these too plainly shew that the lodge has banished Freemasonry . " It may be true that Mr . Heckethorn has hit a blot with respect to the too easy admission of members ; but that known worthless characters are freely admitted into

Freemasonry in England we utterly deny . As for the rest of the complaints they are simply chimeras . In no Order are the statutes , & c ., regarded as with us , and no wise or needful reform is ' ever long resisted . But many proposals are called reform , which are , in fact , only revolution , and

therefore , we in England knowing full well " that the proof of the pudding is best known by its eating , " and seeing how well the Masonic machine is working , as practical men we do not encourage excited proposals for unmeaning and unnecessary changes . It is very curious that Mr .

Heckethorn will mix up English and Foreign Freemasonry , as if whatever was done abroad we do at home in our quiet land . Much that abroad is called Masonry we utterly repudiate in England , and we are quite one with Mr . Heckethorn in condemnation of many of the

ridiculous proceedings which he mentions , such as the most absurd citation of Napoleon III ., of the Emperor of Germany , of the Pope of Rome , and of Marshal Prim , before Masonic tribunals . All such proceedings are utterly opposed , in our opinion , to the peaceful and loyal character of

tiue Freemasonry . Mr . Heckethorn adds , " like monasticism and chivalry , it ( Freemasonry ) is no longer wanted . " Wc entirely disagree with Mr . Heckethorn , in such a doctrine . Whatever may be the case as regards chivalry and

monasticism , Freemasonry has , as we believe , outlived them both , and has still a great future before it , as its mission seems to us to be especially marked out for it in these cantankerous days , by its gentle message of tolerating forbearance , and its kindly deeds of active benevolence .

The Freimaurer Zeitung.

THE FREIMAURER ZEITUNG .

Our contemporary , as we say , is " at it again . " Not content with having attacked us , in the last number we have seen , it turns its attention to the Masonic Magazine , and declares that its utterances are equally pharasaical with our own , and that the views which have been expressed

about the loyalty of English Freemasons , both in the Freemason and the Magazine , are most unmasonic . Luckily for us , such censure affects us very slightly indeed . We know that in what we say we express the feelings of an

overwhelming majority of our English brotherhood , and beyond that point we do not seek to go , and we do not care to go . The Freimaurer Zeitung asserts that in such remarks as we have made , whether in the Freemason or in the Masonic

The Freimaurer Zeitung.

Magazine , against political discussions in lodges , that we oppose their best interests in Austria and elsewhere , and side with their opponents . We , " au contraire , " claim that we are their best friendSj and warn them in plain and straightforward language , of what we deem to be the

cause of government objection and also interference in many countries , and advise them to become , like us , a purely unpolitical -body , a benevolent brotherhood , a religious but tolerant sodality , and then they need not fear that any government will concern itself about

either their meetings or their maxims . But the Freimaurer Zeitung does not like the advice . Perhaps not , but that does not prove that the advice is not good , and that the warning is not needful . Just the reverse . The child , nay , for that , the man , does not always like the

doctor ' s prescription ; the advice seeker does not always swallow down at once the somewhat unpalatable utterance of the advice giver , probably the true friend . Hence the Freimaurer Zeitung and Bro . C . Von Gagern must be gcod enough to believe that we say what we mean , and

mean \ tfJiat we say . All that we have put forward has been in the truest spirit of fraternal goodwill and sincere good wishes for the Austrian Freemasons ; but having some little experience of the matter , knowing something alike of the prosperity and the drawbacks of Freemasonry , especially in foreign lands , we have

thought it well , as brother Freemasons , to tender our honest advice , which , whether liked or disliked , accepted or rejected , was based on a close and careful study of our own Masonic annals , and was animated by a firm persuasion of the intrinsic excellences of Masonry when worked on true principles , and in accordance with its own great and sacred lore .

Original Correspondence.

Original Correspondence .

[ We do nat hold ourselves responsible for , or even as approving of the opinions expressed by our correspondents , but we wish , in a spirit of fair play to all , to permit—within certain necessary limits—free discussion . —ED . ]

THE GUILD " THEORY . To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I read Bro . Buchan ' s letter with much interest , but do not agree with him , as he knows . We most fraternally disagree . And so to-day as the question has cropped up again , I want to ask my good brother one or

two questions , as the discussion of the Guild Theory will , I think , do good , if conducted on truly Masonic principles . Has it ever struck him , in his able efforts to maintain his favourite theory , he falls into the difficulty suggested by the old French proverb , " qui preuve trop , preuve rien . " That Freemasonry existed before 1717 wc have the most

undoubted proofs . We have the evidence of Ashmolc in 1 ( 1 4 6 , and again in 1682 . We have about the same time the evidence of Dr . Plot , who was a non-mason , and not very friendly to the Order . We have Robert Padgett , Cltrke loathe Society ofjFreemasons 168 5 ; jwe have a lodge at York in 16 93 ; and we have the minute book of the Lodge of Alnwick in 1702 . We also read of the Fre ; -

masons as an organized body , with signs , Sec , mentioned in the " Taller " in 1709 , and which quotation is verified in the old Freemasons' Magazine for 186 3 , vol . IX , new series , page 3 . 1 say nothing of the Scotch ' lodges , as I do not wish to poach on Bro . VV . J . Hughan ' s manor , but certainly I know that in his mind , as in mine , the evidence is irrefragable that before 1717 , speculative Masonry existed

both in England and in Scotland , anil that we , the revived Grand Lodge of 1797 , arc the continuation of the operative guilds . I would ask Bro . Buchan another question . If he denies the connexion between the operative Grand assembly and the speculative Grand Lodge , where did the 1717 Freemasonry come from ?

If it was entirely distinct from the ceremonies and ritual , and teaching of the operative guilds , who concocted it ? When they met in 1716 , or 1717 , how did they meet ? As operatives or speculatives , or neither , or both ? Does Bro . Buchan mean to contend that our speculative system took its rise 1717 ?—that it was entirely distinct from the operative guilds and the quasi speculative

lodges in Scotland ? Who then were the Freemasons at Warrington who received Ashmole ? Who were the Freemasons who met in Basinghall-strect in 1682 ? What was the Worshipful Society of Freemasons of which Robert Padgett was " Clerke " in 1685 ? Who were the Freemasons at York in 16 9 . 3 ? Who were the Freemasons in Staffordshire ? It is quite clear that the Masons' Company and the

Society of Freemasons were two distinct bodies , and , therefore , we are brought back to this , that towards the end of the 17 th century a society of Freemasons existed in this country , which we have every reason to believe is certainl y identical with our present speculative Order . I mi ght adduce many other " points " and " illustrations " but I forbear , as these are enough for my present purpose , the more so as I am quite sure that their important bearing and precise value will be at once seen by so able and a correct

Original Correspondence.

brother as W . P . Buchan . He is it seems to me , on two horns of a dilemma—if he says before 1717 , I find no traces of speculative Freemasonry , who then invented it all in 1717 ? If he says he docs , and admits the slightest identity between our Freemasonry and the Freemasonry in vogue before 1717 , he practically adopts the guild

theory . As 1 have often said before , I am only writing in the cause of masonic truth , but at present I see no other possible ground by which you can historically account for the preservation and continuation ot the Masonic lodge , and of the Masonic system , except in the guild theory . Yours fraternally , A MASONIC STUDENT .

To the Editor of the Freemason . Sir and Brother , — I am more convinced than ' ever of the reasonableness of what is termed the " Guild Theory , " in explanation of the origin of Freemasonry , and so I am working with Bro . the Rev . A . F . A . Woodford , in unearthing all documents bearing in any way on Freemasonry , which

are to be found in old lodge chests and in muniment rooms , which have been considered heretofore of no account'in our researches . The iast few years speak of the success which has crowned our efforts , and I purpose shortly to enumerate the MSS . known by , or familiar to the Craft , a dozen years ago , and those accessible to the fraternity of to-day .

I am quite convinced that Freemasonry , as a secret institution , operative and speculative , sometimes both , and at other times one only of these two departments , existed centuries before the Grand Lodge of England was constituted in 1717 , which was the first Grand Lodge ever formed , and at which meeting the first Grand Master ever elected was installed ; but I am not prepared to admit that our three degrees , including the Roval Arch , are so ancient .

I am fully prepared to defend my position , but at present I prefer letting my friend Bro . Buchan rest , as he is engaged in preparing a scientific work of considerable usefulness to those in his line of business , and which we believe has already taken exceedingly well in the United States , where genuine information and authentic facts are appreciated . When he is ready I am willing to say a few words if needs be . W . J . HUGHAN .

LORD CARNARVON'S SPEECH . To the Editor of the Freemason . Dear Sir and Brother , — I have carefully perused your leader at page 202 , under the above heading , and I beg to thank you for the truly Masonic spirit in which it is written , at the same time you must excuse me for still standing by my little

" vanity . No good but harm would ensue by me throwing it up before being properly satisfied that it was wrong . A good many brethren now consider that there is something in the 1717 theory , and although it may require a little touching up here and there , yet upon the whole it is not far off the mark . I sec you claim Lord Carnarvon as a supporter of the

" guild theory , " but I am not sure that that is exactly correct , for , quite possibly , for all we as yet know , his lordship may hold by or believe in the Solomonic theory I I see you also claim Bro . Hughan as an upholder of the guild theory , but I can scarcely admit that either , without a little explanation , for in our views upon the history of Freemasonry , Bro . Hugan and I sail side by side for at

least nineteen-twentieths of the way . There is a good deal of difference between Bro . Woodford and myself upon the history of Freemasonry , but between the published statements of Bros . W . J . Hughan and D . Murray Lyon and myself I find very little ; and to remove that little what is wanted is the publication of such records as those of the Masons' Company of London , not forgetting also the

publication of the records of a number of the companies , crafts , and guilds . Were these all published I believe they would support the 1717 theory ; you think otherwise , very good , but time and the records decide betwixt us , I think that is but fair seeing that at page 202 you , yourself , state that we are as yet only " upon the threshold of enquiry and verification .

Before closing this letter I would beg leave of you to allow me to state what my 1717 theory is . I ask this because I believe that the Freemason has of late had many additions to its readers , and as many of these will be young Masons , they will scarcely understand what is meant without a little explanation . The 1717 theory draws a broad line of demarcation

between speculative and operative Masonry , and asserts that the mediaeval and earlier guilds were not the ancestors of the Grand Lodge of A . D . 1717 . It also affirms that the Masons of the middle ages neither knew aught of nor practised our system of Freemasonry . It further asserts that our system of three degrees was altogether unknown to the Craftsmen of the middle ages , said degrees being

the product of the brains of Desaguilers , Anderson , and their confreres , in or about A . D . 1717 . It also asserts the old Masonic guilds had no private mystical teaching , or none which was not at any rate common to other trades and " mysteries , " and that the guilds were merely trading and operative bodies and friendly societies . And , in conclusion , it affirms that instead of the transactions of A . D .

1717 being the " revival' of speculative I' reemasonry , they were its foundation ; and instead of the four old London lodges either knowing or practising our system of Freemasonry before A . D . 1717 they were simply made use of in starting it . Supposing the 1717 theory to be wrong in whole or in

part , we have the Ashmole theory ( as enunciated e . g . in Chambers , Encyclopedia , ed . 1875 ) to fall back upon before we come to the guild theory . Let , however , the 1717 theory receive its quietus first . I am , Yours fraternally , w . P . BUCHAN Glasgow , May 15 th ,