" Origin Of Masonry."

assumed the form of those of the other trades , and lost their peculiar significance ; the more so as in many places the Stonemasons abandoned their Lodges , and affiliated with the guilds of ordinary masons . "

The idea at page 72 of a whole squad of men stopping work on the approach of a strangermason , and " forming themselves into a half-circle , a square , or some other geometrical figure , with their Master at their head , " is a little carious .

And as to the apron being alluded to and worn as "the distinguishing badge of our Order , " I am not , as yet , aware of its being so used before A . D . 1717 . I am not aware that Elias Ashmole , in the 17 th century , wore an apron , the same as we now

do , at every Masonic meeting at which he was present , or that Sir Christopher Wren did so after his adoptionm 1691 . All craftsmen wore aprons , and just as it suited them , and their work , and nntil last century I am not , as yet , aware of any

peculiar significance attaching to a " Mason ' s " apron , any more than to a smith ' s . The giving the credit of the allegorical symbolisms which are so often seen depicted in Gothic Cathedrals to the Masons is a pure mistake . It is

to the Clergy of the Roman Catholic Church that we are indebted for these allegories , nay more , it is to them also that we are indebted for the rise and progress of the Gothic Architecture of the 12 th and 18 th centuries .

As to the two pillars depicted at page 76 , I should like to know something reliable about them before saying much •possibly they may be examplesof the vagaries of late German work , thedate of the base of one looking as if it were nearer the

14 th century than the 11 th , however , this is perhaps a case for the exercise ofthe masonic virtue " caution . " I lately got a wonderful account of the so-called "Prentice-pillar" ( more properly Prince ' s pillar )

at Roslin , which I was told contained three beautiful wreathes or garlands entwined around it , and which were cut in reference to our " three degrees " and so on—very good so far , only it so happens that there are four wreaths round the pillar !—so

much for fancy . At page 81 we are told that the Masons " were far ahead of their contemporaries in general knowledge and education ! " I suppose we must admit this , at least to the extent that the Masons of former times were equally as far ahead of their

contemporaries , as are the Masons of the present day ? Only it is a little curious that a Mason in Glasgow never managed to get on for Deacon-Convener during the last two centuries and-a-half until a few years ago , and in a list of Deacon-Conveners of

Edinburgh , beginning at 1578 , and up to the middle of the last ceutury , we only find two Masons , viz : —John Milne and Andrew Wardrop , their earliest date being 1653 ; while the Hammermen , Tailors , * Goldsmiths , Skinners , & c , again

and again selected . It strikes me a Mason several centuries ago was simply a stone-cutter , or a builder , and as to taking the leading part in burglial affairs , we must look to some of the other crafts for that , generally .

At page 110 he reiterates the idea of a "freemason , " meaning a mason " who work in freestone , " but that that is a mistake , I have only to say that all masons worked in free-stone , both those who received " 4 den , " and those who got " 3

den . " "Free-mason" simply meant a mason who was free of his gild . And as a corroboration of this , we find that in Scotland they were called freemen-masons , or freemen ofthe masons' society . Free-stone-masons is , I consider , wrong .

At page 121 he reiterates the usual mistakes of Thomas Boswell , in 1600 , being a Warden , and Robert Moray , in 16-11 , being a Master Mason of the Lodge of Edinburgh Mary ' s Chapel . As at page 126 Sir Christopher Wren was not

" adopted " until 1691 , he could hardly be " Grand Master" in 1685 , more especially , also , as there was none such until 1717 . f As to the imaginary remarks at page 139 about the " initiation " of " Fellows , " the writer might

do well to read Schaw ' s 1599 Statutes , which show that two Apprentices were bound to be present at the legal admission of all Masters and Fellows then . At page 151 we are told that " The square and compass" conjoined was W \ Q pexuliar mark ofthe