-
Articles/Ads
Article V ANCIENT WR1TEES AND MODEEN PRACTICES. ← Page 3 of 5 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
V Ancient Wr1tees And Modeen Practices.
]? ree-Masqnry , according to Buhle , was invented in the year 1629 , by one Andrea . Here let our readers clearly understand that we do not adopt the views of Messrs . Andrea , Buhle , and De Quincey , or any one of them ; we merely quote what is said against us , because , firstly , Masonic publications in general onlv treat of the principles ,
views , & c , on our own side of the question , and we therefore seldom see what is written against us ; secondly , on the same reason that Tories read Whig newspapers and vice versa , we read De Quincey and other anti-Masonic writers , especially if they are clever , as De Quincey undoubtedly is ; and thirdly , for the two above-mentioned reasons we think it right to give our readers the opportunity which
we ourselves enjoy—if not for their instruction , at least for their amusement—it may be for both . After this explanation , let us proceed . The probahle reason which our author assigns for the possibility of his papers " dropping out of remembrance , " is that it never reached the public ear , partly owing to the limited circulation of the journal , but much more from the fact that the title of the paper was
not so constructed as to indicate its object , or to throw out any promises of gratification to malice . Poor human nature ! We hope , forthe credit of our fellow men , that our own estimate of them , which is more charitable than that of our author , is also more correct
for Ave do give the reading public credit for a better motive than the mere search after matter which promises gratification to malice . Malicious , however , he admits it was , though he dissembled in its title that part of its pretensions . A title ( here it is for the benefit of our readers : Sistorico-critical Inquiry into the Origin of the Bosicrucians and the Free-Masons ; " London Magazine , vol ix ., 1824 , signed , " X . Y . Z . " ) which seemed to promise only a discussion of Masonic doctrines , says our author , must have repelled everybody . We disagree with him , judging at least from our own feelings ; the title of the hook to which we alluded in our last paper on " Ancient Writers and Modern Practices / 5 and which was the cause of our
initiation , was simply , as far as we remember , " Trevilyan on Jree-Masonry ; " whereas , he continues , it ought to have announced ( what in fact was accomplished ) the utter demolition of the whole Masonic edifice . Here , again , we beg to differ ; the " exposures" of Pree-Masonry , which are very numerous , have , indeed , in many instances , had a large sale , but have accomplished no more than did the papers of X . Y . Z . " in the London Magazine ; here , by the hye , our friend admits that that which he before designated as a " bubble , " was an " edifice "—we rather think it was . He adds that he has not at
present space for an abstract of his paper , but as he says that it was conclusive , and that at a future period , when he has strengthened it by facts which he has since noticed in his own reading , he may think it right to place it more effectually before the public eye , we will add this as a fourth reason to the three we gave above for noticing it , and—to show him that we are not afraid of him—be beforehand with him . In one point he is probably correct , viz ., that if he re-publish it , it will come more under the public eye than it did in a magazine
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
V Ancient Wr1tees And Modeen Practices.
]? ree-Masqnry , according to Buhle , was invented in the year 1629 , by one Andrea . Here let our readers clearly understand that we do not adopt the views of Messrs . Andrea , Buhle , and De Quincey , or any one of them ; we merely quote what is said against us , because , firstly , Masonic publications in general onlv treat of the principles ,
views , & c , on our own side of the question , and we therefore seldom see what is written against us ; secondly , on the same reason that Tories read Whig newspapers and vice versa , we read De Quincey and other anti-Masonic writers , especially if they are clever , as De Quincey undoubtedly is ; and thirdly , for the two above-mentioned reasons we think it right to give our readers the opportunity which
we ourselves enjoy—if not for their instruction , at least for their amusement—it may be for both . After this explanation , let us proceed . The probahle reason which our author assigns for the possibility of his papers " dropping out of remembrance , " is that it never reached the public ear , partly owing to the limited circulation of the journal , but much more from the fact that the title of the paper was
not so constructed as to indicate its object , or to throw out any promises of gratification to malice . Poor human nature ! We hope , forthe credit of our fellow men , that our own estimate of them , which is more charitable than that of our author , is also more correct
for Ave do give the reading public credit for a better motive than the mere search after matter which promises gratification to malice . Malicious , however , he admits it was , though he dissembled in its title that part of its pretensions . A title ( here it is for the benefit of our readers : Sistorico-critical Inquiry into the Origin of the Bosicrucians and the Free-Masons ; " London Magazine , vol ix ., 1824 , signed , " X . Y . Z . " ) which seemed to promise only a discussion of Masonic doctrines , says our author , must have repelled everybody . We disagree with him , judging at least from our own feelings ; the title of the hook to which we alluded in our last paper on " Ancient Writers and Modern Practices / 5 and which was the cause of our
initiation , was simply , as far as we remember , " Trevilyan on Jree-Masonry ; " whereas , he continues , it ought to have announced ( what in fact was accomplished ) the utter demolition of the whole Masonic edifice . Here , again , we beg to differ ; the " exposures" of Pree-Masonry , which are very numerous , have , indeed , in many instances , had a large sale , but have accomplished no more than did the papers of X . Y . Z . " in the London Magazine ; here , by the hye , our friend admits that that which he before designated as a " bubble , " was an " edifice "—we rather think it was . He adds that he has not at
present space for an abstract of his paper , but as he says that it was conclusive , and that at a future period , when he has strengthened it by facts which he has since noticed in his own reading , he may think it right to place it more effectually before the public eye , we will add this as a fourth reason to the three we gave above for noticing it , and—to show him that we are not afraid of him—be beforehand with him . In one point he is probably correct , viz ., that if he re-publish it , it will come more under the public eye than it did in a magazine