An Analysis Of Ancient And Modern Freemasonry.

AN ANALYSIS OF ANCIENT AND MODERN FREEMASONRY .

LONDON , SATURDAY , OCTOBER 10 , 1863 .

Concluding Chapter Part III . By % Fra . f WILLIAM JAMES H UGHAX , 18 ° , W . M . 131 Truro , Hon . Member , 75 Falmouth , 415 Glasgow , 1 , 159 London ; Corresponding Member German Union of Freemasons ; Corresponding Editor Voice of Masonry ,

Chicago , U . S ., Knight Companion Boyal Order of Scotland , § 'c . Sfc . It is not my intention , to dwell at length on the next part of our sketch . To do justice to Masonic Bibliography according to the Chevalier de

Bouneville , ten men ' s lives would be a period scarcely equal to the undertaking . " Thousands of works have been issued from the Press on Masonry , yet it is true still , that the majority of Masons are scarcely aware of the existence of tens of volumes . Masonic literature is confined to a few whose efforts

to advance their fellows have been but little appreciated by the great body of Masons , although surely they deserve better treatment . Commencing with the revered names of Dr . Desaguliers , George Payne and the Rev . Dr .

Anderson , ( venerable Masters in the science who illuminated the Masonic dark ages ); we have a long roll of worthies whose names rush to our memory , Martin Clare , Thomas Dunckerley , William Smith , John Scott , Rev . John Entick ,

William Calcott , Laurence Dermott , William Preston , William Hutchinson , John Northoouck , Captain George Smith , Alexander Lawrie and Rev . Jethro In wood . Then we complete the hurried survey by introducing into the living circle of our hearts , Bros . Jeremy L . Cross , Fessler , Dr . Kloss .

K . 0 . P . Kvause , Dr . Crucefix , Rev . Dr . Ashe , Thomas S . Webb , M . Thory , Rev . T . M . Harris , Rev Dr . Oliver , Dr . Rob Morris , Rev . Salem Town , John W . Simmons , Dr . Rebold , Mr . Ragon , D . Murray Lyon , Anthony Oneal Haye , Robert

Macoy , J . G . Findel , William A . Laurie , and Dr . Mackey , of the speculative second century . The very mention of whose names should awaken grateful feelings in the hearts of Masons . It seems strange as Bro . Dr . Van Dalhen observes , that

while the literature of Masonry is so profuse , it is withal so defective iu many respects , for several divisions of the subject reliable data are wanting altogether , and the order has been so veiled in the darkest mystery , by those who should have been its best instructors as almost to defy an

An Analysis Of Ancient And Modern Freemasonry.

authentic and complete history . We have attempted in our own humble way to supply whenever possible , any missing link so as to render the chain of evidence more complete . Many points still remain to be cleared up , and it is to their elucidation that

the attention of intellig-ent Masons should be directed . Several otherwise most useful Masons have rendered their researches of so little avail by allowing their prejudices concerning the extreme antiquity of the society , its resemblances to the

Building Corporations , Ancient Guilds , Sbone Cutters , and other Institutions and Mysteries of earlier days , as also its connection with the absurd legendary accounts of the origin of operative Masonry , that their judgment lias been quite

warped by an over anxious disposition to reconcile historical facts with innaccuraces and misrepresentations .

On this point let us hear the learned Bro , Kvause . In refutation of Bro . Lawries views as to Masonry dating long- before the middle ages , he observes that " when we Had in any nation or age social efforts resembling in aim and

organization those of the Freemasons , we are by no moans justified in seeing any closer connection in them , than such as human nature everywhere , and in all ages is known to have in common—which characteristics form the basis of all social

intercourseunless we are thoroughly convinced by most reliable historical facts that a really historical connection exists . And even such historical connections are very various in kind ; first its one thing when an institution flourishes through the being- constantly renewed by the addition of new members , its sphere of action and regulations undergoing- at

tne same time repeated changes ; and another thing when we learn from history that from , an already established Institution , a perfectly new one takes its rise j and again somewhat different is it , when a newly formed Institution , just rising- into

existence , takes for its model the views , sphere of action , and the social forms of one which has long become entirely extinct . The difference between these three kinds of historical connections must be everywhere most clearly defined , in such cases

likewise , whfre they all three appear . In tho history of Freemasonry , the third kind is most especially important , because it is most generally to be found , and to those unversed in the subject , it seems as if there actually existed historical connection of the first and second kind . Take for example the strong resemblance most distinctly marked , between