Ar00100

eurntente . — PAGE ' FEEEMASOKS' MAGAZIKE : •—Origin of Masonry 421 Notes on American Freemasonry 423 The Language of Architecture 426 Masonic Jottings—No . 46 427

Masonic Notes and Queries „ 427 Masonic Sayings and Doings Abroad 428 MASOKIC MIKROII-. — Masonic Mems 430 Grand Lodge 431 CRAPT LODGE MEETINGS : — Metropolitan 431

„ Provincial 432 Scotland ' . 434 Reviews 435 Address to the Grand Lodge of California 436 Address to the Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Canada 438 Poetry 439 Obituary 439 List of Lodge , & c . Meetings for ensuing week 440

" Origin Of Masonry."

" ORIGIN OF MASONRY . "

LONDON , SATURDAY , NOVEMBER 26 , 1870 ,

BY BRO . "W . P . BUCHAN . The following remarks , & c , have been called forth by a perusal of the " Origin of Masonry , " written by Bro . G . W . Steinbrenner , and published by Macoy and Sickels of New York . At page 16

the author very sensibly says , "yet even at this day ( 1864 ) the most confused , absurd , and discordant opinions prevail regarding the origin of the Fraternity . In very many instances Masonic authors , blinded by a foolish vanity , and by a desire of

proving the vast antiquity of the institution , have strenuously combated the idea that the Fraternity was derived from the Operative Masons , or have allowed themselves to be deceived , and led into error by the peculiar symbolic representations and

ceremonies of our present rituals , and their striking resemblance to those of the Ancient Mysteries . Instead of endeavouring to ascertainhoiv and when these forms , symbols , and ceremonies were introduced into our present system they leap at once to

the conclusion that these are derived directly from the religious mysteries of the ancients . Each fancied resemblance or agreement with some symbol or alleged custom of these Ancient Mysteries is seized upon as a sure and reliable

indication of a direct connection , and thus they not unfrequently involve themselves in matters which have not the slightest bearing on the subject in question . " Page 26 , "Nothing more can be understood by its origin than that period when its ' principles were systematized , and the institution

organized by mutual association . " Taking the author ' s view of the meaning of the word " origin , " I would almost be inclined to say that our " present system " had its " origin " in London in A . D . 1717 . However , in order to save dispute

as to the meaning of " origin " I put it that onr " present system" was instituted and inaugurated in 1717 . At page 29 he says , " Intelligent and impartial brethren place their reliance only on the authentic

records and history of their fraternity , and maintain that nursery tales must henceforth be confined to the nursery . " At page 33 he alludes to a work " The Secret History of Freemasonry , London , 1725 , and

afterwards proceeds to analyze his evidence . At page 46 " la comparing the social organization , customs ; and doctrines of Freemasonry with those of the medkeval building associations , we find indications of a close historical connection (?) existing between the two institutions . For

example , we find that the following peculiar usages and customs were common to the Fraternity of Freemansons of the present day and to that of the ' Steinmetzen '—stone-masons , stonecutters—of Germany ; ( why say , " of Germany "

par excellence ?) 1 . The division or classification of their members into Masters , Fellow-Crafts , and Apprentices . " Now before going' any further I object to the words " historical connection " being used ; the reality being merely a . n intentional

manufactured close resemblance in many things , especially in words . And as for the old Masters , Fellow-Crafts , and Apprentices , these were different classes of men , working together and mixing among each other , and with " secrets " or "

mysteries " common to all ; Ayhereas onr Masterships , FellowrCraftships , and Apprenticeships are simply degrees of initiation . In certain Scottish Sixteenth century statutes we read that Apprentices were bound to be present at the admission of all Masters aud Fellows , hence they would see whatever simple ceremony was done .

He also asserts that " The form of opening and closing their assemblies" was the same among the old Operative Masons as now among us , as also that " The ritual of initiation or reception into the fraternity " was the same some centuries

ago as now ? Now I deny both of these last assertions ; and at least challenge proof ? I am . inclined to believe that the customs ofthe old ( in or before